1 Corinthians 9:1

Ch. 1Co_9:1-14. St Paul’s Defence of his Apostolic Authority

1. Am I not an apostle? am I not free?] This chapter is devoted to a defence of the Apostolic authority of St Paul, but there is an under-current of thought connecting it with the last which may easily be missed. In ch. 8. St Paul has been exhorting the Corinthians to sacrifice their own personal predilections for the benefit of others. In 1Co_9:13 he declares himself to be ready to act upon this principle to the uttermost. But some may say, “Fine doctrine this, but does the Apostle practise what he preaches?” Robertson. He is about to give a proof of his sincerity by referring to his sacrifice of self for the good of others, when he anticipates in his mind the reply, You have no power to do otherwise: you are not an Apostle at all; and he replies to each of these statements in his usual fervid way, by asking of each of them, Is it really then true? This connection of ideas is strengthened if with the majority of MSS. and the Syriac and Vulgate versions (so Wiclif, Whethir I am not free? am I not Apostle?) we transpose the two clauses, and read, “Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? The argument is admirably summarized by Bp Wordsworth thus: “Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle? Am I not your Apostle?”

have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?] One distinction drawn by St Paul’s opponents between him and the other Apostles was that they had seen and associated with Christ, while he had not. He rebuts this in the form of a question. He had seen the Lord (1) in the way to Damascus (Act_9:3; Act_9:17); (2) after his return to Jerusalem (Act_22:17, cf. 1Co_9:14 of the same chapter, and Act_9:26; Gal_1:18); (3) at Corinth itself (Act_18:9, where observe that the Greek word does not signify dream, since it is used of the burning bush in Act_7:31 as well as of the transfiguration in St Mat_17:9); (4) on some occasion not specified (2Co_12:1), but probably during the Apostle’s sojourn in Arabia (Gal_1:17), unless indeed it be the vision above-mentioned in Acts 22.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_9:1-22

Am I not an apostle?

Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

Signs of apostleship

Why should Paul, departing from his usual custom, speak here of himself and his claims? Undoubtedly because these were questioned. Now wishing to incite the Corinthians to self-denial, Paul exemplified this virtue; but to make this effective it was necessary that he should assert and vindicate his position and rights. If he had no special commission from Christ, there was no virtue in renouncing privileges which never were his. The signs of his apostleship were--

I. The vision of christ. Not that every one who saw Jesus became an apostle; but that none became an apostle who had not seen and been commissioned by Him. No doubt he had been contrasted with the twelve to his disadvantage in these respects. But Paul would not submit to an imputation which must needs weaken his authority. He had seen the Lord on the way to Damascus, had heard His voice, and been entrusted with a special mission to the Gentiles. He had not been preaching the gospel at the instigation of his own inclinations, but in obedience to the authority of Christ.

II. Success in apostolic labour. The craftsman proves his ability by the work he does; the sailor by his navigation of the vessel; the soldier by his courage and skill. So the apostle acknowledges the justice of the practical test.

1. Paul appealed to his work. Labour is misspent when no results ensue. But his labour had not been in vain.

2. The workmanship of the apostle was also his seal, i.e., it bore the mark and witness of his character, ability and office. A competent judge, looking to the Churches Paul had founded, would admit them to be evidence of his apostleship.

3. The signs were manifest in the very community where his authority was questioned. There is irony and force in the appeal made to the Corinthians. Whoever raised a question they should not. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)

The leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister

The greater minister of Christ

I. The More Independent Of Ceremonial Restrictions. Paul was an apostle, and had seen Christ, a qualification that distinguished him as a minister from all but eleven others. Besides this, his natural and acquired endowments placed him in the first rank of reasoners, scholars, and orators. He was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, &c. But see how he regarded the mere conventionalities of religious society. Am I not an apostle? Am I not free?--referring to the eating of meat offered to idols, &c. (1Co_8:13). The greater the man, always the more independent he is of forms, fashions, customs. Hezekiah called that which his countrymen worshipped Nehushtan, a piece of brass. Cromwell called that glittering insignia of authority on the table of the House of Commons a bauble, Thomas Carlyle called all the pageantry of office and the glitter of wealth shams. Burns called the swaggering lordling a coof. A famous French preacher began his funeral address over the coffin of his sovereign with There is nothing great but God. What cared Elijah for kings? Nothing. Felix trembled before the moral majesty of Paul, even in chains.

II. The higher the services he renders to society (1Co_9:1-2). He that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways, &c. What work approaches this in grandeur and importance? And the man who succeeds in accomplishing it demonstrates the divinity of his ministry (1Co_9:3).

III. The more independent he is of the innocent enjoyments of life (1Co_9:4-5). Paul claims the privilege to eat and drink as he pleased, and to marry or not.

IV. The more claim he has to the temporal support of those whom he spiritually serves (1Co_9:6-14). The reasons are--

1. The general usage of mankind (1Co_9:7). He illustrates the equity of the principle from the cases of the soldier, the agriculturist, and the shepherd.

2. The principle of the Jewish law (1Co_9:8-9). Doth God take care for oxen? Yes; but is not man greater than the ox? And shall he work and be deprived of temporal supplies?

3. The principles of common equity (1Co_9:11).

4. Other apostles and their wives were thus supported (1Co_9:6-12). Have we done less? Is our authority inferior?

5. The support of the Jewish priesthood (1Co_9:13).

6. The ordination of Christ (1Co_9:14; cf. Mat_10:10). Looking at all that Paul says on that question here, the conviction cannot be avoided that no man has a stronger claim to a temporal recompense than a true gospel minister. Albeit no claims are so universally ignored. Call the money you pay to your butcher, baker, lawyer, doctor, charity; but in the name of all that is just, do not call that charity which you tender to the man who consecrates his entire being and time to impart to you the elements of eternal life.

V. The more ready to surrender his claims for the sake of usefulness. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

A true minister

We see in these verses--

I. What it is that constitutes a true minister.

1. Communion with Christ. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

2. Souls won for Christ. Are not ye my work in the Lord?

II. The true minister ought to be recognised by his people.

1. Courtesy demands it.

2. His message demands it.

3. His work requires it.

4. Their consciousness declares it.

III. It is often better to answer foolish questions than to pass them by.

1. For the sake of individual character.

2. For the sake of the Christian Church.

3. For the sake of mankind. (A. F. Barfield.)

The claims of the Christian minister

I. Are founded--

1. Upon his character as--

(1) A messenger of Christ.

(2) A man.

(3) A Christian.

2. Upon his work.

II. Include--

1. The common rights of man.

2. The particular right to a just compensation for his labour.

III. Should be enforced--

1. With moderation.

2. With a due regard for the interests of the gospel.

IV. Ought to be relinquished rather than occasion reproach: still the right remains, and will finally be established. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Maintenance of the ministry

In the preceding chapter Paul has disposed of the question as to meats offered in sacrifice to idols. He has inculcated the duty of accommodating ourselves to the consciences of others, and is prepared to abridge his own Christian liberty. But keeping pace, as he always does, with the thought of his readers, it at once occurs to him that his opponents will declare that his apostleship stands on so insecure a basis that he has no option in the matter, but must curry favour with all parties. The original apostles may reasonably claim exemption from manual labour, and demand maintenance both for themselves and their wives; but Paul has no such claim to maintenance, and is aware that his apostleship is doubtful. He therefore--

I. Asserts his right to the same privileges and maintenance as the other apostles (1-14). He rests his claim on--

1. His apostleship (1Co_9:1-6). No one could be an apostle who had not seen Christ after His resurrection. Paul therefore, both in his speeches and in his letters, insists that on the way to Damascus he had seen the risen Lord. But an apostle was also one who was commissioned to bear witness to this fact; and that Paul had been thus commissioned he thinks the Corinthians may conclude from the results among themselves of his preaching. In presence of the finished structure that draws the world to gaze, it is too late to ask if he who built it is an architect.

2. The principle of remuneration everywhere observed in human affairs (1Co_9:7). However difficult it is to lay down an absolute law of wages, it may be affirmed as a natural principle that labour must be so paid as to maintain the labourer in life and efficiency; as to enable him to bring up a family which shall be useful and not burdensome to society, and as to secure for him some reserve of leisure for his own enjoyment and advantage. Paul anticipates the objection that these secular principles have no application to sacred things (1Co_9:8-9). But this law is two-edged. If a man produce what the community needs, he should himself profit by the production; but, on the other hand, if a man will not work, neither should he eat.

3. Ordinary gratitude (1Co_9:11). And some of the Churches founded by Paul felt that the benefit they had derived from him could not be stated in terms of money; but prompted by irrepressible gratitude, they could not but seek to relieve him from manual labour and set him free for higher work. The method of gauging the amount of spiritual benefit absorbed, by its overflow in material aid given to the propagation of the gospel would, I daresay, scarcely be relished by that monstrous development the niggardly Christian.

4. The Levitical usage (1Co_9:13-14). That evils may result from the existence of a paid ministry no one will be disposed to deny. But if the work of the ministry is to be thoroughly done, men must give their whole time to it; and therefore must be paid for it; a circumstance which is not likely to lead to much evil while the great mass of ministers are paid as they are.

II. Gives the true season for foregoing his lawful claim. Paul felt the more free to urge them because his custom was to forego them (1Co_9:15). How apt are self-denying men to spoil their self-denial by dropping a sneer at the weaker souls that cannot follow their heroic example. Not so Paul. He first fights the battle of the weak for them, and then disclaims all participation in the spoils. Nor does he consider that his self-denial is at all meritorious. On the contrary, he makes it appear as if no choice were left to him. His fear was that if he took remuneration, he should hinder the gospel of Christ. Some of the best incomes in Greece were made by clever lecturers; Paul was resolved he should never be mistaken for one of these. And no doubt his success was partly due to the fact that men recognised that his teaching was a labour of love, Every man finds an audience who speaks, not because he is paid for doing so, but because there is that in him which must find utterance. Paul felt that on him lay the gravest responsibilities. Had he complained of bad usage, and stipulated for higher terms, and withdrawn, who could have taken up the task he laid down? But while Paul could not but be conscious of his importance, he would arrogate to himself no credit. Whether he does his work willingly or unwillingly, still he must do it. If he does it willingly, he has a reward; if he does it unwillingly, still he is entrusted with a stewardship he dare not neglect. What, then, is the reward? The satisfaction of knowing that, having freely received, he had freely given (1Co_9:18).

III. Reaffirms the principle on which he has uniformly acted. It was from Paul (1Co_9:19) that Luther derived the keynote of his blast on Christian Liberty with which he stirred Europe into new life: A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one. But Paul was no mere latitudinarian. While accommodating himself to the practice of those around him in all matters (1Co_9:20-23) in all matters of mere outward observance, he held very definite opinions on the chief articles of the Christian creed. No liberality can ever induce a thoughtful man to discourage the formation of opinion on all matters of importance. No doubt righteousness of life is better than soundness of creed. But is it not possible to have both? Again, Paul had an end in view which preserved his liberality from degenerating (1Co_9:22). In order to remove a mans difficulties, you must look at them from his point of view and feel the pressure he feels. In order to gain men, you must credit them with some desire to see the truth, and you must have sympathy enough to see with their eyes. Parents sometimes weaken their influence with their children by inability to look at things with the eyes of youth. Put yourself in the place of the inquiring, perplexed, embittered soul, find out the good that is in it, patiently accommodate yourself to its ways so far as you legitimately may, and you will be rewarded by gaining some. (M. Dods, D. D.)

Abstinence from rightful privileges

Verse 27 is commonly quoted in the Calvinistic Controversy, to prove the possibility of the believers final fall. In reality, it has nothing whatever to do with it. The word castaway, is literally reprobate, that which, being tested, fails. Reprobate silver shall men call them. St. Paul says, Lest when I have preached to others, I myself, when tried by the same standard, should fail. In chap. 8. Paul had laid down the principle that it was good to respect the scruples of weaker brethren (1Co_8:13). But to this teaching an objection might be raised. Does the apostle practise what he preaches? Or it is merely a fine sentiment? Does he preach to others, himself being a castaway, i.e., one who being tested is found wanting? The whole of the chapter is an assertion of his consistency. Note:--

I. Pauls right to certain privileges, viz., domestic solaces and ministerial maintenance. This right he bases on four arguments:

1. By a principle universally recognised in human practice. A king warring on behalf of a people, wars at their charge--a planter of a vineyard expects to eat of the fruit--a shepherd is entitled to the milk of the flock. All who toil for the good of others derive an equivalent from them. Gratuitous devotion of life is nowhere considered obligatory.

2. By a principle implied in a Scriptural enactment (1Co_8:9). The ox was provided for, not because it was an ex, but because it was a labourer.

3. By a principle of fairness and reciprocity. Great services establish a claim. If they owed to the apostle their souls, his time had a claim on their gold.

4. By the law of the Temple Service. The whole institution of Levites and priests implied the principle that there are two kinds of labour--of hand and of brain: and that the toilers with the brain, though not producers, have a claim on the community. They are essential to its well-being, and are not mere drones.

II. His valiant abstinence from these privileges (2Co_8:12; 2Co_8:15). Note--

1. His reasons.

(1) He was forced to preach the gospel, and for the preaching of it, therefore, no thanks were due. But he turned his necessity to glorious gain. By forfeiting pay he got reward: and in doing freely what he must do, he became free. When I must is changed into I will, you are free.

(2) His object was to gain others (verse 19) His whole life was one great illustration of this principle: free from all, he became the servant of all.

2. The general principles of our human life. You cannot run as you will; there are conditions (verse 24). You cannot go on saying, I have a right to do this, therefore I will do it. You must think how it will appear, not for the sake of mere respectability, or to obtain a character for consistency, but for the sake of others. And its conditions are as those of a wrestling march--you must be temperate in all things--i.e., abstain from even lawful indulgences. Remember no man liveth to himself. The cry, Am I my brothers keeper? is met by St. Pauls clear, steadfast answer, You are. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

If I be not an apostle unto others … I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.--

The successful minister

I. His happiness.

1. Success.

2. Divine attestation.

II. His claims upon--

1. The respect.

2. Affection.

3. Help.

4. Support of his charge. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The seal of apostleship

I. Consists in actual success--in the conviction and conversion of sinners.

II. Establishes the claim to apostleship--because it--

1. Indicates the Divine call and blessing.

2. Is of more value than human authorisation.

III. Entitles a minister to the special regard of those to whose spiritual benefit he has contributed. If no claim on others--yet on you for sympathy, love, support. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Mine answer to those that do examine me is this.--

Ministerial independence

I. Attempts are often made to limit the free action of Christian ministers; as in apostolic times, so now.

II. These attempts should be resisted with Christian dignity and in a Christian spirit--Pauls answer--he excludes all interference with--

1. His manner of life.

2. His personal and domestic associations. His mode of working. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The right of the ministry to support

Observe--

I. The occasion of the apostles appeal.

1. Not selfish (1Co_8:12).

2. Some disputed his apostleship and its rights (1Co_8:3).

II. His assertion of his right--

1. To support for himself--for his wife if he thought proper to marry.

2. Sufficient to free him from the necessity of manual labour.

III. His defence of his right--is sustained by an appeal to--

1. Human justice.

2. The law.

3. The sense of gratitude.

4. Divine ordination under the law, under the gospel. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 9:1-2. Am I not, &c. — It appears from this, and several other passages of the epistles to the Corinthians, that some of them, influenced probably by false teachers, who had crept in among them, objected to St. Paul’s being an apostle, because he had not asserted his privilege in demanding and receiving such maintenance from the churches as was due to that office, inferring from this circumstance that he did not judge himself entitled to any such privilege, and therefore had wrought at a trade, to support himself thereby. Hence, after deciding some very difficult questions, which the Corinthians had proposed to him, and particularly after affirming, in the end of chap. 7., that he had decided these questions by the inspiration of the Spirit; and after showing himself a faithful apostle of Christ, by declaring, in the end of the last chapter, his resolution on all occasions to abstain from things indifferent, rather than, by using his liberty respecting them, to lead his fellow-Christians into sin; he with great propriety introduces the proof of his apostleship, and answers all the objections and calumnies whereby his enemies endeavoured to discredit him in the eyes of the Corinthians. Am I not — As truly as any man living; an apostle? — Divinely appointed and commissioned by the Lord Jesus? Am I not free — To act as I think best, with regard to receiving a maintenance from those to whom I minister or not? Have I not the liberty of a common Christian, yea, and that of an apostle, so as to have a right to preach the gospel without reward, if I think fit so to do? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord — After his resurrection, so as to be able to bear witness to that important fact on my own knowledge, as confidently as those who saw him before I did? Unless he had seen Christ, he could not have been one of his first grand witnesses, could not have borne testimony to his resurrection on his own knowledge thereof. Are not you — In respect of your conversion, gifts, graces, privileges; my work in the Lord — The fruit of my ministry as an apostle among you, by means of God’s grace and power working with me? If I be not an apostle to others — So visibly and demonstratively; yet doubtless I am to you — Who, of all people in the world, can show the least excuse for questioning my mission; for the seal of my apostleship — The certain evidence of my divine call; are ye in the Lord — Who have not only received faith by my mouth, but all the gifts of the Spirit by my hands.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(b) Food offered to Idols

(ii) St. Paul's own Example

St. Paul has appealed to the 'enlightened' converts at Corinth to give up for the sake of others a practice which they might otherwise have had no hesitation in indulging. He now strengthens this appeal by pointing to his own example of self-denial. As an Apostle he had the right to maintenance from the Church, but had refrained from exercising it, lest he might be suspected of preaching for gain.

Since his opponents declared that he maintained himself by his own work simply because he knew he was no true Apostle, he begins by proving (1Co_9:1-3) his claim to the Apostleship, and so (1Co_9:4-6) to the rights enjoyed by other Apostles. He defends this right (1Co_9:7-14) by a number of arguments. Then he gives (1Co_9:15-22) his reasons for not exercising it. His whole conduct has been influenced by the aim of causing no hindrance to the gospel, but of commending it to every man:

1-6. His claim to Apostleship, and consequent right to maintenance.

Paraphrase. '(1) Am not I myself free from outward authority? For am I not an Apostle, having seen Jesus our Lord? (2, 3) Why, your very existence as a Christian Church should be to you a sufficient proof of my Apostleship. (4-6) Now other Apostles, the Lord's brethren, and Peter himself, are supported as well as their wives, by the Churches they visit; have not Barnabas and myself this same right?'

1. Am I not free] (RV puts this question first) i.e. being an Apostle, I am free from man's authority, and could do many things I abstain from doing for your sakes: cp. 1Co_9:19.

Have I not seen Jesus] An Apostle's work was to be a witness of the Resurrection (Act_1:22; Act_2:32); therefore he must have seen the risen Lord. This St. Paul had done at his conversion (Act_22:14; 1Co_15:8-9).

2. Unto others] in their opinion. The seal] That which authenticates, or proves true. The existence of the Corinthian Church was a proof of St. Paul's apostolic power. 1Co_9:3 probably refers to this, not to what follows, 'If you want a proof of my apostleship, look around you!'

4. Power] RV 'right.' To eat and to drink] as guests of the Church.

5. To lead about a sister, a wife] RV 'a wife that is a believer'; i.e. to claim support on his journeys for his wife as well as himself. It is implied that the Apostles were mostly married; Peter's wife's mother is mentioned Mat_8:14. No doubt their wives were of great service in getting access to the women of Eastern cities. Lead] as the companion of his travels. He asserts that he could reasonably claim not only support for a wife, but also payment of her travelling expenses as well as his own. The brethren of the Lord] cp. Mat_12:46; Mat_13:55. They seem here included among the Apostles; but the title of Apostle was not limited to the Twelve.

6. Barnabas] was like St. Paul, an Apostle (Act_14:14), and like him, but unlike the rest, he maintained himself by his own labour. They may have jointly adopted this course on their missionary journeys (Acts 13, 14). We see that Barnabas was known to the Corinthians, and still working as a missionary. For St. Paul's self-support see on 1Co_4:12.

7-14. Proof of this right. This right is proved (1Co_9:7) from the analogy of soldiers, husbandmen, shepherds; (1Co_9:8-10) from the direction in the Law that the ox should not be muzzled (1Co_9:11-12) on grounds of common fairness and gratitude; (1Co_9:13-14) from the example of the Jewish priesthood.

7. Who goeth a warfare] The Apostles were spiritual soldiers, husbandmen, shepherds.

8. As a man] RV 'after the manner of men'; i.e. reasoning only from analogies of common life.

9. For it is written in the law] RV 'Is it not also written in the law?' Thou shalt not muzzle the.. ox] Deu_25:4. The ox threshed out the corn either by simply walking upon it, or by dragging a heavy sledge over it.

Doth God take care for oxen?] RV 'Is it for the oxen that God careth?' i.e. He did not make this law merely for their sake; He meant the principle to go much further, to be applied to men. This is an instance of St. Paul's use of the allegorical method of interpretation: cp. 2Co_3:18; Gal_4:22.

10. Altogether] or, 'really,' 'certainly.' He that thresheth in hope, etc.] RV 'He that thresheth to thresh in hope of partaking.' The same principle which applies to oxen holds good of human labourers, and so of spiritual labourers.

11. Carnal things] i.e. earthly material support: cp. Rom_15:27.

12. If others be partakers] This shows that there were some persons receiving support from the Corinthian Church: cp. 2Co_11:20.

Power] RV 'right.' Rather] RV' yet more'; i.e. as the instruments of your conversion.

Suffer] RV 'bear.' Hinder the gospel] by being suspected of self-interest.

13. Live (RV 'eat') of the things of the temple] i.e. its tithes and offerings. Partakers with the altar] Part of the offering was burnt on the altar; part fell to the priest: cp. Numbers 18; Deu_18:1-3.

14. Hath the Lord ordained] Mat_10:10; Luk_10:7.

15-23. His own reason for not exercising this right.

Paraphrase. '(15) But I am resolved to maintain my independence. (16-18) It is the one thing I can boast of. I cannot boast of my preaching the gospel, for I am compelled to preach the gospel; I have no choice in the matter; but this self-support is of my own free will, and I find its reward in increased opportunities and success. (19-23) To obtain such, I have also been in the habit of adapting myself to the position and circumstances of every class of men in turn.'

15. I have used none of these things] The Apostle was the more free to advocate the principle 'that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel,' because his own refusal of support kept him free from personal bias. These things] i.e. these rights. Make my glorying void] deprive me (by supporting me) of my boast of preaching the gospel freely.

17. Willingly.. against my will] RV 'of mine own will.. not of mine own will.' He preached under the constraining influence of the love of Christ. Reward] answers to 'glorying': cp. Rom_4:2-5. A voluntary action admits of 'glorying,' and calls for 'reward.' So it was with St. Paul's self-support; not with his gospel-preaching. Dispensation] RV 'stewardship.'

18. That I abuse not my power] RV 'so as not to use to the full my rights'; viz. of claiming maintenance from his people.

19. Free from all men] Under authority or obligation to no man. Servant unto all] Accommodating myself to their desires and prejudices as far as possible.

20. I became as a Jew] preaching first in their synagogues; appealing to their Scriptures, e.g. Act_13:14, etc. As under the law] e.g. circumcising Timothy, who was half a Jew (Act_16:1-3); helping the men who had taken the Nazirite vow (Act_21:23-26); keeping the feasts (Act_20:16). RV inserts, 'not being myself under the law': cp. Gal_2:11-19.

21. To them that are without law] i.e. Gentiles: cp. Rom_2:12-19. To them he became as without law e.g. refusing to have Titus, a Gentile, circumcised (Gal_2:3-5); mixing freely with Gentiles; using arguments from natural religion and from Greek literature and philosophy, as at Lystra (Act_14:15-17) and Athens (Act_17:22-31). Being not without law to God] Liberty did not mean licence; though free from bondage to the Law of Moses, he yielded obedience to the moral law of God as revealed in Christ.

22. The weak] cp. 1Co_8:13; Romans 14, 15. By all means] some in one way, some in another.

23. Partaker thereof with you] RV 'joint partaker thereof,' i.e. share with my converts in its blessings and salvation. This v. forms the transition to the next paragraph. St. Paul practised self-denial for his own sake also.

24-27. The importance of self-discipline. St. Paul illustrates the need of this self-denial which he has been inculcating from the Greek games or athletic sports, some of the most noted of which (the Isthmian) were held near Corinth every two years. The prize was a mere wreath (at Corinth, formed of parsley, afterwards of pine), but the winner was welcomed home to his native city with the honours of a victorious general; his statue was erected; his victory was celebrated by a leading poet; a front seat was assigned him at all festivals and spectacles; he was frequently relieved from taxation. St. Paul draws lessons for his converts from the earnestness and self-discipline needed in these contests: cp. Php_3:13-14; 2Ti_2:5; 2Ti_4:7; Heb_12:1.

24. Not all who start in a race, win; only the best. In the Christian race there is a crown for all who run their best, but only for such.

25. Striveth for the mastery] RV 'striveth in the games.' Temperate in all things] i.e. under strict 'training' as to food, drink, and exercise. An incorruptible] 'a crown of glory that f adeth not away' (1Pe_5:4).

26. Not as uncertainly] not hesitating, looking back. Not as one that beateth the air] but aiming my blows well. The metaphor changes from running to boxing.

27. Keep under, etc.] RV' I buffet my body and bring it into bondage.' The body is the seat of temptation to self-indulgence. One great object of fasting and abstinence is to secure this control over our bodies, so that 'the flesh may be subdued to the spirit.' The illness to which St. Paul was subject, his 'thorn in the flesh' (2Co_12:7), must have tempted him often to seek his own ease and comfort and to live a more self-indulgent and less laborious life; and this temptation he fought against unceasingly. Preached to others] like the herald who proclaimed the conditions of the contest and its prizes, and summoned the competitors. A castaway] RV 'rejected'; disqualified. 'No amount of usefulness to others will save us if we ourselves live not the life of God' (Woodford).

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PAUL’S FIFTH RESPONSE:—TO THE QUESTION AFFECTING HIS APOSTOLICITY, 1Co_9:1 to 1Co_10:13

The intense purpose of sacrificing his own rights in regard to eating meat, expressed so vividly in the last chapter, (see note on the closing verse,) suggests to St. Paul a parallel sacrifice of his own apostolic rights which he had thus far practiced through his whole mission. Fully maintaining the right of an apostle to be maintained by the Church, he had abdicated that right in his own case, and had earned his living by the skill of his own hand and the sweat of his own brow. His Christian calumniators, so far from appreciating this magnanimity, made it the ground of a charge against him, that he did not claim his maintenance because he was conscious of not being a true apostle. He was not one of the twelve. He had never seen the living Christ. He was no brother or kinsman of Jesus. He was, therefore, a spurious apostle, and not worthy the pay he dare not claim. Paul now replies, and replies here, because this self-sacrifice of his lies in direct line with the self-sacrifice expressed at the close of the last chapter. The following is his train of self-explanation.

1. He asserts his apostolic freedom and prerogative, 1Co_9:1-6.

2. Maintains the minister’s right to pecuniary support from the Church by the law of compensation, 1Co_9:7-14.

3. Declares why he renounced that right, namely, because his glory and his reward were a gratis gospel, 1Co_9:15-19. In accordance with this self-sacrifice, 4. He made himself, within the limits of right, all things to all men, in order to win them to Christ, 1Co_9:20-22.

5. Thus to attain the final prize, like an athlete, he earnestly disciplines and subdues himself that he may not become at last a castaway, 1Co_9:23-27.

6. Precisely in continuance with this train of thought, in the next chapter he charges the Corinthians, not in the image of an athlete, but by the example of Israel in the wilderness, to escape a like cast-away finality, 1Co_10:1-14. Then the digression being closed, (as noted in our last note on chap. 8,) he resumes the topic of idol sacrifice.

1. Assertion of his apostolical right and prerogative, 1Co_9:1-6.

1. Am I not free?—By the best readings this question stands first, and forms the hinge from the previous topic to what follows. Do I thus subject myself to privation for others, even of food, because I am not truly a free man like yourselves? Nay, more, am I not an apostle?—And so entitled to the apostle’s maintenance, which I decline to receive? And as his apostleship is questioned, he adds a running interrogative assertion of it.

Seen Jesus—The requisite qualification for being an apostle. See our notes on Luk_1:2; Act_9:3.

Ye my work—This practical proof convinced the council of Jerusalem of Paul’s apostleship, (notes on Act_15:4; Act_15:6; Act_15:12,) as Paul more fully asserts to the Galatians, Gal_2:7-9.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

1Co_9:1.—Notice the reversed order of clauses in the better-attested reading. Free.—I.c. quâ man; he is always Christ’s “bondservant”; it is of his own choice that he submits to such limitations (1Co_9:19-22) upon his liberty as, e.g., in 1Co_8:13; or as this in question, that he should maintain himself by his manual labour, whereas he was also “free” to demand Church maintenance for himself if he had chosen. Apostle.—He had once been the Apostle (Sheliach, the Talmudic equivalent) of the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem to the synagogue in Damascus. [In this, etymological, sense and employment of the word Barnabas is called an apostle (Act_14:14). So the same popular, freer use derived from the Jewish practice lingers in 2Co_8:23 (of Luke and the bearers of the “collection”), in Php_2:25 (of Epaphroditus). The sense of “among the apostles” as including Andronicus and Junias (Rom_16:7) is very disputable, especially if the latter name be a woman’s, “Junia.”] Now a greater High Priest had sent him forth as His messenger and representative. For this the two needful qualifications were, to have had his commission direct from Christ’s own lips [“I send thee” (Act_26:17), putting him on an equality with those who heard Him say, “Go ye therefore,” etc. (Mat_28:19-20)], and to be able, at first hand, and not merely by hearsay or report of others, to assert as a fact within his own knowledge that the Crucified Christ was risen again and was then really living [putting Paul on the footing of Peter and the rest, who could say, Act_5:32; cf. Act_1:22 (very explicit); cf. 1Jn_1:1]. Important for us that the first link of the chain of historical evidence and testimony should be sound. [If indeed the uniqueness of the position of the apostles in their special selection, commission, and qualification for this testimony, out of the witnesses of 1Co_15:6, does not make them, not merely the first link, but the strong staple, holding the first link, and itself driven into the solid rock of the facts. The Apostolic company mediated between the Great Fact—the Living, Risen Christ—and the long succession of Christian teachers who must needs receive the truth on evidence of others (supported, indeed, by the subjective evidence of their experience of His working). My … in the Lord.—Observe how the second phrase guards, almost corrects, the first. [Cf. 1Co_16:23-24 : Christ’s grace; my love.] No independent work; no success of his own. He has no wisdom, strength, success, except as his whole life is “in Christ”; and thus Christ wins the success and does the work through him. It is Christ’s working and power; it is only a question which of the members of the Body He shall employ for any particular part of the great task, and to which shall be “credited” the particular share of the great total result.

1Co_9:2. To others.—Q.d. in their opinion, and by their recognition, “I am not.” Notice “at least,” R.V. seal.—As by-and-by his “crown” (Php_4:1), and, then and now, his “joy” (ib.). “At Corinth, at all events, there can be no doubt of the original validity of my commission, or whether it be still running and valid.”

1Co_9:3. Answer.—Apologia, as, e.g., Act_22:1; 2Ti_4:16. A forensic word, like “examine,” as, e.g., in Act_4:9; Act_24:8; Act_28:18; (1Co_4:3-5).

1Co_9:4. Power.—In the sense of “right”; so in 1Co_9:12, “to eat and to drink,” q.d. at the expense of the Church.

1Co_9:5. Sister.—In the Christian sense, parallel to “brother” (1Co_5:11, etc.); “a wife” who is also a Christian “sister.” The brethren of the Lord.—Three long-discussed, influentially sustained, theories:

(1) Children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus (the IIelvidian theory);

(2) Children of Joseph by a former wife (the Epiphanian);

(3) Cousins of Christ, children of Mary the sister of the Virgin, assumed also to be the wife of Alphæus (Jerome’s theory). Probably the data are insufficient for a sure conclusion, agreement in which would otherwise long ago have been arrived at.

(1) is unquestionably the most natural impression to be gathered from the Gospel history and from the word “brethren.”

(2), and in a degree

(3), no doubt originated, or found a very strong motive for their propagation and acceptance, in a desire to save the “perpetual virginity” of Mary.

(1) accounts best for the prominence in the Church at Jerusalem of the James of Acts 15, and of Paul’s Epistles. Cephas.—Mat_8:14. [Very precarious speculation has seen another touch of Peter’s domestic life in 1Pe_5:13, and yet more precariously has made his wife the “elect lady” of 2 John, because of 1Pe_5:13, which is only “the elected one (fem.) at Babylon.”]

1Co_9:6.—Barnabas was a rich landowner in Cyprus (Acts 4), and needed neither to work for his living nor to ask the Church to maintain him. If (with Bishop Lightfoot, Gal_2:11) we make Paul’s rebuke of Barnabas’s vacillation occur during Act_15:30-40, they may have started together with a “soreness” which made Barnabas (or both of them) tenderly irritable, and helped to the “quarrel” (so-called) about John Mark. This the earliest mention of Barnabas by Paul after the separation. [The spirit of even this passing mention may be paralleled by John Wesley’s persistent kindness of thought and speech to and about Whitefield, after their separation over the Calvinist controversy.]

1Co_9:7.—Matters little whether the master or the employé in the vineyard, the owner or only the hired shepherd, be intended. Probably the former. As to the soldier, note the R.V.

1Co_9:8. As a man—Found in Rom_3:5 (cf. 1Co_6:19); 1Co_3:3; 1Co_9:8; 1Co_15:32 (Gal_1:11, plur.), 1Co_3:15; “after man,” as a pattern or norm, but with varying shades of meaning. Here: “According to the sense of what is right, customary amongst men.” Not only does the common judgment of mankind bear him out in his contention, but God has delivered His mind also.

1Co_9:9.—“Deu_25:4, quoted also in 1Ti_5:8, is very conspicuous for its unexpected, sudden, and momentary reference to cattle amid matter quite different” (Beet). [But the whole chapter looks like a succession of legislative dicta, “entered up” in the statute-book with no order or connection beyond that of their succession of actual enactment as the occasion arose.] An instance carrying a far-reaching principle in regard to the interpretation of the Old Testament. If some enactments seem vague, impracticable, trivial, or even minutely vexatious, “unworthy of the attention of such a Book and of God,” we may say:

1. A trivial case may carry a great principle.

2. Some simple precepts have large analogical meanings when transferred to spiritual things.

3. The çy près principle applies here, as in all legislation which is affected by changing circumstances.

4. Only fair to the Bible to bring in common sense, to explain or apply, as in ordinary life. True order of thought, in this and all similar instances, is not up from the temporary, “trivial” case to the higher spiritual analogy, but down from this to the lower and Jesser. In this small enactment we are touching a widely applicable principle of the Divine order, in a very lowly, temporary embodiment. N. B.—This “law of Moses” is also what “God saith.”

1Co_9:10. Our sakes’ altogether.—Not denying the early, lower intention of God, who does, in this passage, “take care for oxen.” Similar to “I have loved Jacob, and hated Esau”; or rather to “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”; where evidently the negation is not absolute, but comparative, in its force. Our.—Hardly to be narrowed to mean only Christian ministers. Note the change of reading, and of consequent rendering. “Partaker of his hope” meant, “Enjoying the reward he hoped for as he laboured.” This also a general principle, not specialised until 1Co_9:11; 1Co_9:14, but a point of Divine “political economy,” which should be embodied in (say) the relations between capital and labour.

1Co_9:12.—Cf. 2Co_11:12.

1Co_9:13.—Stanley sees in this resumed argumentation, and in the reiteration in 1Co_9:14 of what had been said in 1Co_9:11, the probable sign of a resumption of the letter after some pause. [As perhaps a change of amanuensis, or a new morning’s work. Cf. 2Co_10:1. He presses also “I wrote,” in 1Co_9:15.] Lev_6:16; Lev_6:26; Num_18:8-19. See in connection with 1Co_8:1.

1Co_9:14. The Lord Christ hath ordained.—Mat_10:9 sq., Luk_10:7 are quoted [not necessarily from written Gospels] as in 1Co_7:10.

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.—1Co_9:1-14

The Support of a Stipendiary Ministry.

I. What the minister has a right (1Co_9:4-6) to expect from his people.—Maintenance (1Co_9:14). This right rests upon:

(1) The natural fitness and “right” of the case (1Co_9:7; 1Co_9:11-12);

(2) The Old Testament legislation (1Co_9:8-10), definitely endorsed and adopted in

(3) The words of Christ (1Co_9:14).

II. What the people have a claim to expect from the minister.—

(1) That he have all needful credentials (1Co_9:1-2);

(2) That he do his work; he actually “preaches the Gospel” (1Co_9:14).

III. What Christ has a right to expect from His servant.—That in claiming, or enforcing, or using his “right” he shall not “hinder” his Master’s Gospel.

I. The central verse of this section is 1Co_9:14. All turns around this.

1. To some ears the “rights of the ministry” has an ugly sound. The minister is often expected to be above such considerations, and to let nothing be heard from himself but how he feels the call of his “duties” press upon him. So he does, if he be a minister worthy the name. He comes into the ministry with a “woe” in his ears, as the penalty of any alternative course. He preaches to his people—rich and poor—that Rights mean Duties. The poor need to have this preached to them as certainly as the rich. But Duties also mean Rights. If the “call” of Christ and His Church be such as to indicate that he must make the ministry the one business of his life, then he must be maintained whilst he is fulfilling his “calling.”

2. Paul is discussing the case of the Apostolate. It was no doubt a unique order of men, charged with a function for the Church of their own time, and for the Church of all time, which cannot be repeated by any other set of men, and never needs to be repeated. Once for all they have set Christian dogma upon the firm basis of History. (See Critical Notes.) But the analogy holds good, in this particular matter, between the case of these unique and extraordinary servants of Christ and of the Churches and the ordinary ministry. The inspired and authoritative declaration of 1Co_9:14—whether paraphrased from, e.g., Mat_10:9, or a divinely guaranteed report of an unwritten word of Christ (similar to the case of Act_20:35)—generalises the application of the principle.

3. The “ordinance” of Christ foresaw, took account of, provided against, a separated ministry. The Body of Christ has simply, and from the necessity of the case,—a necessity recurring in connection with every growing, enlarging, organisation whatsoever,—followed the analogy—“the law”—of all organised structures in Nature. As complexity increases, as the demands of the organisation multiply and are differentiated, so the organs which meet the demands are multiplied, and become specialised in their function and faculty. The specialisation of work and of officials in the Body began in Acts 4, when the apostles ceased to attempt to do everything in the Church, and “Deacons” (so-called) were told off to a special portion of what had been included in their work. A simple Church, independent of organised fellowship, of small numbers, of simple requirement, may reproduce the early simplicity of pastoral and official organisation. But as it grows, and, above all, if a system of grouped, affiliated, connexionalised, organised Churches comes to form a new Church, it becomes a matter of expedient division of labour to set apart a pastorate, who will need, and should give, a whole and undivided attention to the teaching and “ruling” needed by the enlarged work and community.

4. “A paid ministry” is a theory and a practice which may reasonably be criticised and objected to; but a “sustained, supported ministry” is a necessity of the case. The man must “live” of the Gospel; not “starve” or “struggle” upon it. His “flock” should do their utmost to see that the shepherd is not the worst fed of them all; they should set him free from need and care. And 1Co_9:5 enlarges the range of this principle of necessary, suitable support. “Life” is not merely food, clothes, house, bed, books, cut down to a minimum of possibility. A “living” is not merely what will keep the man himself out of want. The apostle, or his ministerial successor, is a man, for all he has been called into, thrust into, office. In all ordinary conditions full, all-round manhood means marriage, a “wife,” a home, perhaps children. Celibacy like Paul’s, should always be the exceptional thing, and never compulsory. It has cut off the ministry from the manhood of the Church, in regard to the sympathy which comes from, and only by, experience. It has morally been a snare to the ministry itself, and often a curse to the community. The “fork” of rigid ecclesiastical legislation cannot “expel Nature” from the man, merely because his work becomes specialised, and he himself is separated in order to do it the more effectively. The “recurrence” and the revolt of outraged Nature have often been disastrous, and full of disgrace, to the Christian, and the ministerial, name. The man, though made a minister by the expediency and the necessity of circumstances, has the “right to lead about a wife”; to have his own home, with its solace and its support. And the “living” covers the needful, suitable provision for this also. His “right” is “authority.” His Lord authorises him to requisition his support from his people. This “right” is manifestly in accord with:

(1) The fitness of things, and the analogy of ordinary human affairs. Whether he be master or servant, the vine-dresser may reasonably expect that his vineyard shall at least sustain him whilst he cultivates it; the shepherd, be he sheep-master or shepherd-man, may hardly be expected to render all his service gratuitously, or to be content that all the produce and advantage shall go to others, who have done nothing, whilst he goes unsupplied. [Cf. the (perhaps) Virgilian protest:—

“Sic vos non vobis nidificatis aves,

Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis oves,

Sic vos non vobis mellificatis apes,

Sic vos non vobis fertis aratra boves.

His ego versiculos feci; tulit alter honores.”]

The minister can indeed never urge the claim of the Owner of the Vineyard (Isa_5:2); “the Great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb_13:20), “Whose own the sheep are” (Joh_10:12), has a claim which no under-shepherd can advance; but, though the “wages” theory is no satisfactory or suitable one for the money-relations between minister and people, the workman might ever claim his “wages,” the under-shepherd his “pay,” his “keep.” Paul and his fellow-or successor-ministers are soldiers on campaign. The war is urgent; there is no respite in the campaign. Discipline and duty, under ordinary circumstances, both forbid that the soldier should need to go foraging for his rations, or should need to combine with his soldering some other means of support. He must not be “entangled with the affairs of this life” (2Ti_2:4). The side-occupations, the by-employments, to which he might have to resort, might easily impair his own spirituality, and so his efficiency; indeed, in them he might easily be tempted to do some business with the Enemy. The Enemy will be his provider readily enough, if only he can so divert him from his campaigning and soldierly duty. He looks to his Captain for his support, and his Captain bids him draw upon the Church. They must “honour” the Captain’s draft, and find the soldier’s “salt-money.” And are they not, moreover, themselves in debt to the minister? They owe to him their “spiritual things,” “their own selves also” (Phm_1:19). It is not repayment, it is only due acknowledgment of their indebtedness, that they should give him such “carnal things” as his need requires. Indeed, it is “sowing” and “reaping.” Will they begrudge, or deny, him a handful, and that of the less valuable produce, of the harvest in their lives, springing, too, from his sowing? Religion means to many, new habits, a new character, God’s blessing, which are very directly and obviously productive, even in their business career (Mat_6:33; 1Ti_4:8). Many a man thus indirectly owes wealth and position—“carnal things”—to the minister whose labours first sowed the seed of eternal life in his heart. “How much owest thou unto thy Lord?” “How much owest thou to thy Paul, thy minister?” If any man should see to it that the ministry is supported, it is that man who owes to the faithful, sympathetic pastor and friend his conversion; his Sabbaths of blesssing, which mean new inspiration for his best life, and multiplying, propagating, reproductive, spiritual help for the work of the weekdays; the spiritual influences in his home; the conversion of his children. Corinth at least should have felt the obligation to see to it that Paul wanted for no “carnal things.” All this is embodied in

(2) The Old Testament legislation. (See Critical Notes.) He will take the Jews on their own familiar ground. They did “hear the Law” (Gal_4:21). Then to the Law they shall go. [No need to disparage such a style of argument, because the Rabbis to an absurd extent so “targumed” Old Testament passages. Their “targum” often employs a perfectly legitimate method, and lays bare a true, Divine, and abiding significance in the temporary or “trivial” enactment or story. The question is in any case one of evidence, and is not to be dismissed with a sweeping, preliminary dictum condemning all. Does Paul’s “targum” approve itself to the spiritual judgment of the profoundest—not always, or of necessity, technically the most “learned”—students of the Word of God? An interpretation of an Old Testament passage occurring, employed, in the New Testament, is adopted, sanctioned, guided, by the Inspiring Spirit.] The great principle in the mind of the Lawgiver is found in Deu_25:4, in a miniature, temporary, special, concrete form. De minimis curat hœc lex, and for greater matters also. The oxen are not deemed unworthy of His “care,” indeed; but they are part of man’s world, and God is caring for man, is caring for apostles; for workmen of every order and degree, but with not least solicitude for the “workmen” in the Church (1Co_9:1). The temporary colour washes out of this, as out of so many more, Mosaic ordinances, and leaves us with perhaps a little, but a real, piece of a stuff made for everlasting wear. Your Apostolic, ministerial “ox” plods his way, and hauls along, his heavy drag week after week, year in, year out. Do not muzzle his mouth, or grudge him his mouthful! Such enactments are part of the whole Revelation of God’s mind and will.

(3) “The Lord” knew His Father’s mind in this, as in all else, and has put upon the old principle His own universal, generalised shape—the Teacher and Legislator as He is, for a Race and for all Time—and has put it on the Statute-book of His kingdom, “that they who preach … shall live,” etc. His word is final. Beyond it no Church can go, nor behind, nor beside it. The minister’s “right” is formally enacted by the King Himself.

II. But the Church has its claim in the matter also.—If a man—though he be a “minister”—work, he has a right to eat. If a man will not work—minister or any man—neither shall he eat. And the man whom the Church is asked to sustain should be unchallengeably a “minister,” who—

1. Can produce his credentials.—Paul could. Point by point he could match the “letters of ordination” produced by Cephas or “the brethren of the Lord,” or by any other teacher whatsoever. Once more (as shown in Critical Notes) it is to be remembered how exceptional were the case and the credentials of an “apostle” [in the strict, narrow sense of the title]. But as in the natural so in the spiritual world, no work of God is isolated. Every fact has its relations, generally its analogies, to many adjacent facts. Evolutionary science has that much of right, in its teaching that a deep, close-drawn unity of idea runs through all the works of God. Earliest and latest, simplest and most complex, lowliest and highest, are all bound together into One Work of God. The Miracle has its relations to the Ordinary; it is not a mere isolated marvel. The Apostolic office was the exceptional, the extraordinary; but it was traced upon lines which are also the foundation lines of the draft of the Ministerial Office. So far as the diversity of facts allows, the analogy holds good between both the apostolate and the ministry. The credentials of both are analogous. The minister of Christ who holds a valid commission, and who may claim support from the Church, has (a) “seen the Lord,” and he so preaches with “the demonstration of the Spirit” (1Co_2:4) that he can appeal to a people who are his work “in the Lord.” (On this last point, see the Critical Notes.) He must himself have come into real, personal relations with Christ, and in the indwelling strength and wisdom of Christ he must have been successful in bringing some others into real, personal relations with Christ too. The two things hang together very closely. No man who has really received his commission from Christ, and has by a holy watchfulness kept himself from all which would sever the living, life-giving, strength-imparting connection with Christ implied in being “in Him,” will ever be long together without his accrediting, manifest “work.” On the other hand, no man will ever accomplish such “work” who has not first “seen the Lord.” He must “know Christ”—and that in the widest sense, and to the fullest content of the idea of “knowing” Him—at first hand; hearsay will not do. He will be a theoriser, a speculator, a critic, but not a witness. Like Thomas, like Paul, he must have stood in the presence of the Risen, Glorified Christ, and seen, as by a flash of holy intuition (or rather by the demonstration of the Great Preacher of Christ, the Holy Ghost) One before Whom intellect and heart have bowed down in trustful, reverent, loving adoration, recognising, “My Lord and my God!” And he must often have renewed the holy vision; must often “stand in the Presence” of his Lord, like an ancient prophet [e.g. Jon_1:3; or like a very angel, Luk_1:19]. And his people will know it. (And they will know it if he has not!) He will speak with a power which their heart and conscience will recognise and will respond to. In his bearing, his words, perhaps his very face, they will see as they gather before him what will make them say, “He has seen Christ Jesus the Lord!” He will be unhappy, and a failure, if his ministry lack this qualification. This will give it a perpetual freshness; every other source of suggestion, every other class of topic, will soon be exhausted, and will soon cease to satisfy hungry souls in his flock. The mere graces of diction, the mental furnishing of mere literary or educational acquirements, will in the long-run do no “work,” certainly none such as is “in the Lord.” A real Church recognises such a man as a true “minister.” His credentials are “read and known of all” (2Co_3:2). They will sustain such a man, especially will they who are “his work.” (b) No tie so tender, no gratitude so deep, as that between the convert and the man who led him to Christ, between the sheep who is in himself a token of the seeking, patient, watchful, helpful love and work of a real Shepherd. Unhappy the man who year after year can show no “work”!

2. He should be a man who does his work, that for which he was “called” by his Master. (For an examination of the phrase “preach the Gospel,” see Homiletic Suggestion on 1Co_9:14.) The idler has no “right.” The Church has a claim against the man that he shall show cause for his “wages,” if his idleness bring down the question so low as to become one of work and pay. The work of the true minister of Christ is many-sided, of many types; hardly any line of study but may be made contributory to the cause of the Gospel. Some are set for the defence of the Gospel. The ministerial scholar, or editor, or botanist, or historical student, or tutor, or antiquary, may, if he will, consecrate his work and make it subservient to the cause of Christ’s Gospel. “If he will,”—but he must. It must converge, of his set purpose, upon Christ. It is a grave question, to be decided as the several cases arise, how far subsidiary occupations of time and strength should be allowed or pursued by the man who, to the necessary basis of natural qualifications for the preacher and pastor, has also the two essential marks above analysed

(1. and 2.). In the widest sense he should “wait on his ministering.” The Church has that claim.

III. Abstract right may be carried to a very mischievous length of practical exposition and enforcement.—The Gospel is not made for the apostle, but the apostle for the Gospel. If the claims of these should seem to clash or compete, the claim and need of the Gospel must stand first. Nothing, not even the abstract “right” of a Paul, must be allowed to “hinder the Gospel of Christ.” The very “right” is only given, indeed, for the sake of the furtherance of the Gospel; it is for the advantage of the Gospel, under all ordinary circumstances, that the ministry should be maintained by the Churches. But in Paul’s case, as he believed, circumstance made it for the advantage of the Gospel, or at least for the obviating of disadvantage and detriment, that his right, the very “ordinance” of his Lord should be waived and should stand aside. To him “to live” was “Christ,”—that dear Name gathered up to itself all Paul’s activities, all his devotion; every motive received its impulse and its direction from that Christ. Of his own eager self-devotion, therefore, he readily chose to set his right aside. His heart and reason, the heart and reason of the true minister, would say that the Lord had the claim upon him that he should. Such a man will, e.g., uphold, or waive, his pastoral prerogatives in a meeting; he will defend himself, or let judgment go against him in silence, when he is misjudged or misrepresented; he will resist, or yield to, the opposition of “unreasonable and wicked men”; as, from one case to another, the interests of the Gospel of Christ may seem to require. In any case of doubtful character the balance will perhaps always be more readily given against himself. It is his debt to his Master that it should be. The Gospel of the Master deserves that consideration!

SEPARATE HOMILIES

1Co_9:10. Hope cheering Labour.—[The verse may be made the occasion of a sermon on the Rewards of Labour and the Returns of Capital.]

1. Diversity of contributors to the ultimate harvest.—Some “plough,” do the preliminary, rough, necessary toil, in manufacturing processes, in all engineering and mechanical trades, in commerce and trade; the “ploughmen” may stand for the unskilled labourers. Some “thresh,” and bring to finished readiness for the consumers’ use all the product of a succession of workers and of the chemistry of nature [i.e. of God in His laboratory within the soil, where the seed is buried and dies, to live again]. The “threshers” may stand for the capitalist, or any (supposed) higher-grade contributors to the final result. Many must co-operate; each beginning upon the basis of the work of another order of workers; and at some point in the chain of production, the blessing and work of God coming in indispensably; if the hungry world is to have its “bread.”

2. There is interdependence of producers.—The ploughman’s work is a necessary preliminary to that of the thresher. The thresher completes the otherwise unfruitful work of the ploughman. Each man is needed. The much-abused “middleman” has arisen out of a need; his work, however selfishly or extortionately or tyrannically it has been used, is in itself only an instance of division of labour, necessitated by the complexity of modern life and business. The man who is not wanted, who does not justify his own place and support, will not long be supported. But the ploughman must not grudge the reward of the thresher, nor must the thresher forget what he owes to the ploughman. And must not forget to give it to him, either.

3. No man should labour, whether ploughman or thresher, without a fair reward for his labour, or without hope of being partaker of the fruits of his toil. The right apportionment of the profits, the fruits, of labour is a growingly difficult problem, [and one on which Christian men may honestly differ as to guiding principles and results; not to be discussed in a neutral Commentary like this]. Labour may be as thoroughly selfish and tyrannical in the matter, as it charges Capital with being. Some of the complexity, the perplexity, of the problem is removed whenever on either side an honest, earnest, sympathetic, painstaking endeavour is made to appreciate the view and the demand of the other. Each side also would need to cease to insist upon absolute, mechanical, doctrinaire, “right.” [In this noblesse oblige; whether it be the noblesse of “superior” station, or of better education and wider views of the complex problem; or of greater ability, financial or other, to go back from the full limit of “rights”; above all, if it be the noblesse of the Christian profession and character. Noblesse should lead the way in concession to prejudice, in patience with ignorance. The Christian spirit should be foremost in softening the rigour of the mere mechanical “political economics,” with their formulation of self-interest working against self-interest.] Logic, “wages,” are not the last words of discussions in times of strained relations and class-conflict. The heart is often illogical, and traverses all theories and formulas; but it rules. The heart understands, if the thresher gets close to the ploughman, and the ploughman tries to understand the thresher. Labour without hope of properly proportioned “partaking,” is the labour of slaves. Such labour, without hope to cheer weariness, to incite to effort, to reward diligence and real work, begets the slavish temper—sullen, rebellious, dangerous. There should be no rigidly mechanical adherence to “rights” on either side; so much time, to a half-minute; so much labour, to a single hand’s-turn; so much wages, to a half-farthing. Brotherliness should “rub down” the hard lines of such a plan of the relations between man and man. [The “lord” in the Saviour’s story who said, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?” is nevertheless a master who gave to some a whole day’s “penny” for one hour’s labour.] To say, “There is no friendship and no religion in business,” is not to utter Gospel, Christian, economics. Let capital leave the door of hope open for the labourer; let not the labourer grudge or make impossible the hope of the employer. All the political economies must adjust themselves according to this fixed, divinely sanctioned principle. [Wherever God is the Employer, He will see to it that His ploughman or thresher does realise the “hope” in which he laboured.]

1Co_9:12. Note three important things as assumed here.

I. Men may hinder the Gospel.—The end of human history is, no doubt, a victory for God and for Goodness, for Christ and His Gospel, and, along with this, a vindication of all the perplexing facts connected with God’s method in leading on the course of history to the goal. Yet one aspect of the ever-present problem of Evil is that the rate and extent of the progress of the Gospel is made dependent upon man’s faithfulness and activity. There have seemed ages of the Church when the Church did nothing to extend, and hardly seemed to keep, the ground previously won for Christianity. No soul will ever be lost, simply and only because a Church or an individual Christian was inconsistent, a stumbling-block, or in apathetic worldliness did not do its duty to that soul. Yet are there none lost who might have been saved if the Church or the Christian had been faithful? What a power, to be able to narrow, or to divert from those dying for it, the river of the water of life—to make the wheels of Christ’s chariot drive heavily, plunged in the sand or the bog of a Church’s indolence or unspirituality or unbelief! [The unbelief of the healthy people in Nazareth prevented Jesus doing all He desired for the need of the sick in Nazareth. How one man, Achan, and he no chief or prince, but only a common man, could hold all Israel in check, and really slay the six-and-thirty Israelites who lay dead in the valley before Ai! Perhaps, on the other hand, 2Pe_3:12 may mean “hastening the day of God.”] [Illustrate thus: Holland is a country for the most part lying below the level of the sea; it would naturally be covered by the waters. But with long years of patient, watchful industry the inhabitants have built and kept up, around their coasts and along their canals, huge dykes, and these, with a system of gates and locks, keep out the waters. All this is the salvation of Holland. But unbelief can build its walls and barriers around itself, and around a Church, and shut out the tide of blessing which God desires to send upon the “thirsty ground.”]

II. Even good men may be in danger of hindering the Gospel.—If, e.g., Paul had insisted too stubbornly on his right to be maintained by the Church, or lawfully to enjoy the company of a wife and the comforts of domestic happiness at the cost of the Church.

III. To hinder the Gospel is so great an evil that to avoid it, or even the danger of it, is worth any sacrifice, except of principle; to help forward the Gospel is worth any cost. Everything which will arouse conflict and bad feeling, everything which may, even incidentally and unjustifiably, cause offence, everything which is found to “give place” to the ever-watchful Adversary, and so to put the brake on to the wheels of progress, the Christian man will forego, “lest he hinder,” etc. He will give up his liberty in the matter of amusements, or recreation, lest though remotely he check the work of the Gospel in even one soul; above all, lest he should cripple his own usefulness, or dull the edge of his own spirituality, and so “hinder,” etc. If the work of God seems to lag, to drag, to be hindered, then Churches and individuals should begin anxiously, and with unsparing fidelity, to inquire the cause. [See the inquiry when Achan’s sin blocked the way of Israel’s conquest. No use for Joshua to be humbled on the ground in prayer: “Get up! Search out the sin!” (Jos_7:10). The saying of the disciples at the supper-table: “Is it I? Is it I?” was better than their earlier saying, “Who is it?”]

1Co_9:12. The Gospel hindered.

I. The progress of the Gospel in the world seems, and surely is, slower than the purpose of God, the desire of Christ, the aim of the Spirit’s work, would lead us to expect.—Faithful hearts yearn for greater, wider, more rapid and sweeping conquests than are actually won. They cannot acquiesce in the actual condition of the matter; they cannot adjust their hope, or activity, to the actual rate of progress. They have a heart, an instinct, within them, which rebels against any such acquiescence and adjustment. They ask, “Why is it? What doth hinder?” The man who is content that the Church—or his own particular, sectional or local Church—should do no more than work on the programme, “As last year,—only more so!” has lost one of the first, simplest tokens of being “in Christ,” and therefore of being in the communion of sympathy with his Lord.

II. Replies which are not answers.—1 “It is of no use to fret or be anxious. God is sovereign; things are going as He wills, and as fast as He just now wills they should.” The spirit of the reply of a Baptist pastor to the offer of Carey for India. Not often heard now; yet, if not explicitly taught, it is implicitly embodied in the practice of the Church. There is, always has been, a sovereignty in the measure and time of the outpouring of the Spirit. The Church has actually progressed spasmodically, by Revivals after times of inertia or unfaithfulness; and these have not always seemed given in response to a specially pleading Church. They have sometimes come upon a sleeping Church. Yet, whilst the Church says to God, “Awake, awake,” He says in reply to the Church, “Awake, awake.” (See Dr. Maclaren, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 19 sqq., Isa_62:1; Isa_62:6-7.) God is covenanted to hear, and to give, and to bless the world and the work of the Church, whenever the conditions are fulfilled by It. At all events, sovereignty or no sovereignty, He is in fact waiting, eager, forward, to give the success which seems hindered. We may count upon Him.

2. The seeming failures cannot mean that the Gospel has found a soil, a race, a heart, for which it has no message, or to whose needs it has no adaptation. That were to charge Him Who has made both heart and Gospel with something less than the perfection of Divine wisdom. History and age-long experiment give no support to such a supposition. On the contrary, the Gospel has conquered, saved, satisfied, sample cases in every land, century, race, temperament, social grade, mental cast, young, old, ignorant, learned, etc.

3. Nor that it has found a race or a heart which does not need it. No other religion as yet has so satisfied and possessed its votaries as that some—sample cases again—have not found a longing for something else, and better, which the Christian faith has supplied. If not before, in the very presentation of this supply the heart learns to know its need.

4. “But the superstitions are so inveterate, the habits of a life-time so hopelessly deep-rooted, the depravity and degradation of heart and conscience and life are such in the the adults, that we must let them go—leaving them to God—and depend upon the young, the coming generation.” But Paul’s Gospel won its triumphs amongst adults, and from inveterate, degraded, deeply depraved heathenism. His Gospel solved the same problems which we face to-day at home or in foreign lands. The Gospel is meant, not only for those who need it, but for those also who need it most.

5. “The Gospel is only to be preached for a testimony to all nations; the actual inbringing of the nations on any wide scale must come with the Thousand Years.” [A large question. Mat_24:14 is appealed to. To many this reply seems like invoking something to supply a lacking effectiveness in the Gospel; like calling upon Christ to come and do what the Spirit and Word of God have failed in accomplishing.]

6. “We want more money, more organisations, a new Society, or Committee, for this or that.” All good; all needed, perhaps. But the Gospel won its first triumphs, and has often triumphed since, with few or none of these helps. Evidently, historically, these are not all, or the essentials. [One-man power, consecrated, is better than all Committees and organisations, though most productive when working under control and with organisation. Money must be made no substitute for the Spirit of God.]

II. [As above, “Men may hinder the Gospel.”] Generally, want of the power of the Holy Ghost is underneath all slow progress. He does what is done, much or little. He would do more, if the conditions on which He co-operates with His Church were better fulfilled by it. [As with Christ at Nazareth, above.] A spiritually low condition of His Church, showing itself in little prayer for the progress of the Gospel, in lack of the spirit of consecration, and issuing in the withholding for self of money, time, family, or anything else needed to the progress and extension of the work, is the great hindrance; it “grieves the Spirit.” Little appreciation of the Gospel at home; therefore little zeal for its propagation, no real faith in, or concern about, its saving power and success; are sometimes “hindrances.” Of secondary importance, but yet real causes, may be, defective representations of the Gospel in the preaching, or in the life of individuals and Churches; it may be overlaid with ritual, or hidden beneath intellectual speculation; it may be made too much a question of philanthropic benefit rather than of redemptive purpose; may now and then be proclaimed in a shape too specially that of a Church or nation. [E.g. must not expect some English modes of working and effort to suit equally well France, or India, or China; only an encumbrance to progress to attempt to transplant methods or some peculiar ecclesiastical constitution into another type of nation and life.]—Suggested in part by remarks in “Homilist,” v., vi.

HOMILETIC SUGGESTIONS

1Co_9:8-10. The Law of God is—

I. Reasonable.

II. Humane.

III. Comprehensive.

IV. Just.—[J. L.]

Or thus:—

1Co_9:8-10. Principles of Equity.

I. Commend themselves to reason.

II. Are enforced by the Law of God.

III. Are of universal application.

IV. Contribute by their operation to the best interests of all.—[J. L.]

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

B. An Illustration of Self-denial drawn from the Apostle’s Life, in the Renunciation of his own Rights and Liberties for the Good of others

1Co_9:1-23

1. Statement of his own rights as an Apostle

1Co_9:1-14

1Am I not an apostle? am I not free? [Am I not free?1 am I not an apostle?] have I not seen Jesus Christ [om.Christ2 ] our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine3 apostleship are ye in the Lord. 3Mine answer to them that do examine 4me is this:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink? 5Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?5 7Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit6 thereof? or7 [om. or] who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?8 9For it is written in the law of Moses,9 Thou shalt not muzzle10 the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is [was] written: that [because] he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that [om. that] he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope11 [in hope of partaking]. 11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap12 your carnal things? 12If others be partakers of this power over you,13 are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used [did not use] this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder, the gospel of Christ. 13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait14 at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Co_9:1-3. The fundamental principle and purpose of his, having been briefly stated in 1Co_8:13, he now proceeds to enlarge upon it, by showing how he had, in fact, been practising self-denial out of love to the Lord and his brethren, and how he had, in a far higher manner than he had demanded of them, renounced his own rights and prerogatives for the sake of winning souls and spreading the Gospel,—[“This whole passage, thus incidentally introduced, is one of the most elevated, heavenly, and beautiful discussions in the New Testament, and contains one of the most ennobling descriptions of the virtue of self-denial, and of the principles which should actuate the Christian ministry, any where to be found. All classic writings, and all records of antiquity, would be searched in vain for an instance of such pure and elevated principle as is presented in this chapter.” Barnes].—He begins with four questions [abruptly introduced, which bring to view the position from which he acted, and answer any objections they might be inclined to make against his appealing to his own conduct. “It would almost appear as if he had properly concluded the subject at 1Co_8:13, and then returned to it from this new point of view on the arrival of fresh tidings from Corinth, informing him of the imputations which he now proceeds to dispel.” Stanley]. In the first question [see critical notes] the asserts his independence,—a circumstance which might appear to exempt him from the need of such circumspection as he above speaks of; in the second, his high function as an Apostle, which fully warranted this independence, and rendered him responsible to Christ alone, whose ambassador he was; in the third, the grounds of his Apostleship in respect of the Lord; and in the fourth, the seal of his office in the Corinthian Church itself, and in his labors there. He thus takes ground from which naturally to pass over and speak of his own right to support—a right, however, of which he had made no use out of regard to higher interests. [And this is the point in his example which he wished to enforce as a lesson upon his readers].—Am I not free?—i. e., independent, [not in a moral sense, as having knowledge, and thus emancipated from foolish prejudices; but in a civil or legal sense, as at liberty to act as he chose, without being accountable to any man]. This point is resumed again in 1Co_9:19; and the fact that it is not discussed until after the full statement of his Apostolic rights, might have occasioned the transposition of the two questions in the Rec. [“The order here followed is not only that of the most ancient MSS., but is also in conformity with the sense. His freedom, and not his Apostleship, was uppermost in his thoughts, and was the special occasion of the digression.” Stanley.—But still more.—Am I not an Apostle?—and so, placed even in a position of authority over others]? But, because this fact was disputed by his opponents, he is disposed to linger here a little; and, by way of proof, asks still further,—Have I not seen the Lord?—He here implies that his Apostleship rested on the same foundation as that of the other Apostles, viz., the immediate call of Christ and the eye-witness of His glorified life. In this respect, therefore, he was their equal. The sight of Christ he speaks of refers primarily to that first manifestation of the Lord to him which effected his conversion (1Co_15:3; Act_9:22-26); yet not exclusive of the later revelations mentioned in Act_22:17; Act_18:9, by which he was confirmed in his labors at Corinth. In no case are we to suppose any reference to his having seen Christ during his earthly life; this would have no significance whatever for the Apostleship of a Paul. That he says this with an eye to the Christ-party, as one that laid great stress on having visions, so that this were an argumentum ad hominem, is a very doubtful assumption. In opposition to Rückert, who supposes that Paul here alludes to his ecstatic vision in the temple, Neander says: “It is impossible that such a vision should legitimate Apostleship.”—Are not ye my work in the Lord?—The designation, “in the Lord,” does not qualify merely “my work,” [q. d., ‘ye are the Lords work, not mine’ (Chrys.)], but it belongs to the whole question. They were his work as an Apostle, and were introduced by him into their new life, and constituted a Church of God, in the Lord, i. e., by virtue of his fellowship in the Lord. The phrase designates the element in which he wrought (comp. 1Co_3:5 ff., and 1Co_4:15). This thought he further expands.—If I be not an apostle to others.—By the others he means those coming into the church from abroad, it may be emissaries from Palestine who sought to mislead the Corinthians in regard to his Apostleship. Ἄλλοις is the Dative of judgment: ‘in their view or opinion.’ Οὐκ εἰυί expresses the fact as it was; hence, οὐ, not μή.—Yet, doubtless, I am to you.—The γέ strengthens ἀλλά: ‘yet, at least,’ or ‘yet surely.’ More in full: ‘Ye certainly cannot but acknowledge me as an Apostle; for ye yourselves, by the simple fact of your conversion, serve to confirm my claim There is no allusion here to the miracles of the Apostle (Chrys.). These were wrought also by those not Apostles. But that his preaching produced such results as could only be ascribed to the power of Christ, this was the proof of his assertion that he was Christ’s ambassador (comp. 2Co_3:2).—for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord.—Σφραγίς, seal, that wherewith one concludes, designates, and confirms any thing; then, confirmation, witness, original testimony. The words “in the Lord” belong here, also, to the whole clause, and imply that the fact asserted was of the Lord, inasmuch as it was He that had vouchsafed to the Apostle so glorious a result in setting up a church so richly endowed in one of the chief seats of heathenism. [“This, although valid evidence, and as such adduced by the Apostle, is very liable to be abused. First, because much which passes for evidence is spurious; and, secondly, because the evidence of success is often urged in behalf of the errors of preachers, when that success is due to the truth they preach; thirdly, because small real success may be taken as evidence for more than it will fairly warrant.” “Still, there are cases when the success is of such a character, so undeniable and so great, as to supersede the necessity of any other evidence of a divine call. Such was the case with the Apostles, with the reformers, and with many of our modern missionaries.” Hodge].—These suggestions he concludes with 1Co_9:3.—This is my answer to them who examine me.—Here the words ἡ ἐμή ἀπολογία stand first by way of emphasis, just as αὕτη ἐστιν come last for the same reason. The phraseology is that of the courts,—ἀπολογία, apology, defence, followed by the dative expressing the parties to whom it is made (2Co_12:19).—ἀνακρίνειν, to judge, investigate, as magistrates at a trial, and here, for the purpose of opposition [“a direct allusion to his antagonists.” Stanley]. Αὕτη, this, is the subject and not the predicate of the sentence (as in Joh_1:19; Joh_17:3), and relates to the fact expressed just before, viz., “the seal.” To connect this sentence with what follows, [Chrys. and the E. V.], as introductory to it, is inconsistent with the contents there found; [“for what follows is no answer to those who called his Apostleship in question.” Hodge].

1Co_9:4-6. He comes now to the first point touched, viz., to his power, his civil rights which he had voluntarily renounced. The indisputableness of these he indicates by employing the form of a question—Have we not power to eat and drink?—Οὐκἔχομεν, taken together, expresses one idea (comp. 1Co_11:22, Rom_10:18); [so that “μή asks the question, and οὐκ ἕχομεν is the thing in question; lit. Is it so that we have not power? Alford]. He here passes over into the plural, because he now takes into view his associates also, or because he desires to be regarded, not in his private capacity, but in that official position which he had in common with all the apostles and servants of God. [This, however, is doubted by Alford, who says that, “at all events, it will not apply to 1Co_9:12, where the emphatic ἡμεῖς is personal.”] In the matter of ‘eating or drinking,’ he has no reference to the Jewish laws respecting food [as though he were claiming exemption from them (as Billr. and Olsh.)], since this would be remote from the context; nor yet to the flesh offered in sacrifices (as Schrader); but, as is shown in what follows, to his right to live at the expense of the Church, a right which was grounded on his apostolic office. The same principle is applied to his journeying officially in company with a Christian wife; for this is what he means when he says—Have we not power to lead about (with us) a sister wife? (ἄδελφν γυναῖκα).—The allusion here is not to a serving matron [whose business it should be to minister out of her substance to the wants of the apostle as he went from place to place, according to the interpretation of Aug., Jerome, and most of the early fathers, and as is still maintained by the Romish commentators in the interest of celibacy—an interpretation which very early gave rise to great abuses], for the subsequent reference to Peter forbids this (Mat_8:14), and it is inconsistent also with the qualifying term γυναῖκα (comp. Osiander). Nor is it the right of marriage which is here in debate, for this is simply presupposed. The point made is Paul’s right to have a companion in travel at the cost of the Church, and for this he refers to the precedent set by the rest of the apostles,—as also the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas.—The allusion here is general, and we are not to conclude from it that all these parties were married. But does he here use the word ‘Apostles’ in its broader or strict sense? Osiander infers the former from the mention made of the brethren of our Lord in a way which seems to assert for them a higher position. These did, indeed, occupy a very comprehensive sphere of mission labor and important responsibility (as James, Gal_1:19); but there is no reason to believe that they stood higher than the twelve. But who are these “brethren of the Lord?” A prevailing dislike, existing even among evangelical churches, of regarding the mother of our Lord, who was conceived in her by the power of the Holy Ghost, as the mother of other children also, born in lawful wedlock, has led to the supposition, either that they were only brothers in a broader sense, being the cousins of Jesus on the mother’s side (since such cases occurred among the Apostles, though never with this designation, see Luk_6:15 ff. and the parables in Matthew 10 and Mark 3), or that they were the sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. “The statement, ‘born of the Virgin Mary,’ is an article in the Church’s creed; but the question, whether she bore children afterwards involves no point of Christian faith.”—Burger. Both the intimation given in Mat_1:25, as also the repeated association of these brethren with Mary by the evangelists, which points to a closer relationship with her than that of step-sons (comp. Act_1:14; Mat_12:46; Mat_13:55), render it probable that they were, in a literal sense, the sons of Mary, who at first followed in the train of Jesus with their mother (Joh_2:12), and later became estranged from Him (Joh_2:3 ff.; comp. Mar_3:21); but, finally, having rid themselves of their prejudices and unbelief by reason of His resurrection, entered the circle of His disciples (see Act_1:14, where they are expressly distinguished from the twelve).15 Among this number James stood preeminent. Him our Lord deemed worthy of a special manifestation of Himself after He was risen (1Co_15:7); and he was highly esteemed, and exercised great authority in the Church of Jewish converts (comp. Act_15:13; Act_21:18; Gal_1:19; Gal_2:9; also see Osiander and Meyer). By referring to the authority of James (in which his brethren shared according to their measure), Paul here puts them next to the Apostles in order to establish his own apostolic rights upon the matter in question more firmly against the opposition of the Judaizers. Osiander’s inference, therefore, in regard to the “rest of the Apostles” is untenable. In further self-justification, he adduces more particularly the example of Peter—and Cephas—who occupied so high a position in the apostolic college (Neander) among the Jewish Christians. The assumption of a climax here, which makes Peter out to be the first of the Apostles (Cath.), is contradicted by 1Co_9:6—Or I only and Barnabas—Paul here associates with himself his early co-laborer, a man of high apostolic consideration (Act_4:36; Act_11:22 ff; Act_13:14). [“This is the only mention of him in conjunction with St. Paul since the date of the quarrel, in Act_15:39.” Stanley. “It is not improbable that after his separation from our apostle he may have maintained the same self-denying practice of abstaining from receiving sustenance by those to whom he preached, which he had learned from Paul at the first.” Alford. “Observe his humility of mind, and his soul purified from all envy, how he takes care not to conceal him whom he knew to be a partaker with himself in this perfection.” Chrys.]—Have we not power to forbear working?—The power or right (ἐξουσία) which he here speaks of is not distinct from those above mentioned, but is a consequence of the denial of them, apagogically introduced, q. d. ‘In that case, then, it would appear that Barnabas and I are not at liberty to forbear working.’ By ‘working’ (ἐργάζεσθαι) he means laboring for support (1Co_4:12; 2Th_3:8; Act_18:5); hence the sense is: ‘are we alone under obligation to work for our livelihood while we preach?’ The Vulgate, by omitting the μή, translates hoc operandi, i. e., according to the Latin expositors, faciendi quod ceteri faciunt, according to Ambrose, ‘of giving instruction for the sake of support at the cost of the churches’)!

1Co_9:7-14. He next passes to establish the right claimed; and, first, from the analogy of secular laborers who are, at the same time, striking illustrations of the nature of apostolic labor (1Co_3:6; 2Ti_2:4). (1). The soldier.—Who ever goes to war?—Στρατεύεσθαι, means, to march to the field, and is used alike of generals and soldiers, the same as in the active voice. Here it denotes the service of a private (Passow II., p. 1562).—at his own charges?—Ἰδίοις ὀψενίοις, the Dative of ways and means; i. e., so that he bears his own expenses. Ὀψώνια, rations, cost, stipend (Luk_3:14; Rom_6:23), [“pr. ‘whatever is bought to be eaten with bread.’ Hired soldiers were at first paid partly in rations of meat, grain, fruit.” Rob. Lex.]. “Paul here is arguing on the ground of natural right.” Neander.—(2). The husbandman.—who planteth a vineyard, and eats not its fruit.—Τὸν καρπόν, the accusative, instead of genitive after the εσθίειν, to eat, is to be taken as the simple objective (Kühner, II. p. 181)]. (3). The shepherd.—who feeds a flock, and eats not of the milk of the flock.—Ἐκ τοῦ γάλακτος, of the milk [Jelf, § 621, 3, 1]. The wages of the shepherd in the East is, even to this day, a portion of the milk. [And this is partly converted into other articles of food, and also partly sold to obtain other commodities. Hence the case of the prep, ἐκ, with the gen. (Alford)].—From the analogy of human relations and usages, he passes to Scripture for proof, thus sustaining his position by a positive Divine ordinance.—Say I these things as a man?—Κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, in a different sense from that in 1Co_3:3; here it stands in contrast with the Law of God, [and means, according to the modes of talking and acting prevalent among men]. “Paul here puts an argument derived from human customs, and one taken from the Law over against each other.” Neander.—Or does the Law, too, (καί) not speak these things?—καί introduces the higher instance as something additional. ̓́Η, or stands apagogically as in 1Co_9:6 (Meyer), q. d., ‘I would not appeal to human analogies had not the Law also spoken in the matter.’ On account of the καί, which would otherwise be superfluous, it were better to treat this as a question antithetic to the foregoing one, and specifying something in advance=ἤ οὐ (οὐχί) λέγει ταῦτα καὶ ὁ νόμος. But this would put ὁ νόμος first, as the object on which the emphasis lies, as the Rec., making a correct gloss here. Λαλεῖν and λέγειν [the former used by the Apostle of himself, and the latter, of the Law] are to be distinguished as ‘say’ and ‘speak,’ the latter having special reference to the contents (comp. Rom_3:19), (Meyer). [“Λαλεῖν expresses the general idea of talking, whether reasonably or otherwise,—λέγειν implies speaking in a rational, intelligent manner.” W. Webster, Syn. of the Gr. Test. This discriminating use of terms, is an incidental evidence not only of Paul’s accuracy of language, but also of his delicate humility].—The legal statute referred to is introduced with γάρ.—For in the Law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox which treads out the corn.—This law is found in Deu_25:4. The same allusion occurs in 1Ti_5:18, [“from which passage the reading φιμώσειζ probably came.” Alford].—Is it for oxen that God is concerned? or does he say this altogether (πάντες) on our account?—The most direct and natural reason of this command, viz., kindness to brutes, is here left out of view by the Apostle, since he disavows for the great Lawgiver (God) a special care for oxen in this provision, and applies it, not as an inference from the less to the greater, or by way of accommodation, but directly to teachers, as to persons engaged in a higher kind of service, viz., the preparation of spiritual nutriment for the people (not, as Philo does, to men in general, as creatures endowed with reason). This interpretation of the Law rests on the correct presumption that the Law has a typical character, and that its enactments provide for higher relations, of which those specified are but the shadow (Col_2:17). In the rapid reasoning of the Apostle the intermediate thoughts are not brought out; but the higher intent of the words is directly exhibited, to the entire omission of the more obvious one, which here seems to be denied, as though God did not care for oxen. The attempt to modify the language by supplying the word ‘only,’ is arbitrary. “We are not to press this language too far. Taken literally, it would appear as if Paul denied a general providence in contradiction to what our Lord says. All ho intends here is to obtain from the particular Mosaic statute a more general ethical principle, applicable to the relations existing between man and man; and in doing this he does not separate between the interpretation and the application.” Neander. And so Meyer says: “This class of creatures were not the object of the Divine solicitude in this statute; that which expresses care for oxen was said not for their sakes, but on our account.” [“Every duty of humanity has for its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in that system of which man is the head, and therefore man’s welfare. The good done to man’s immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice, infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes.” Alford].—Presupposing an assent to the second question, he proceeds to argue in its favor by explaining the statute in its higher sense.—For on our account was it written.—[The γάρ, for, gives the reason for the assertion implied in the previous question].—that,—ὅτι, is neither to be rendered ‘because’ [as, Alford, Hodge, Stanley], since what follows cannot possibly be construed as a possible reason; neither is it intended to introduce a supposed quotation [as Rückert, who finds here the language of the Apocrypha]; but it is merely explicative, as pointing to the practical result.—he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that threshes, in the hope of partaking.—[See Critical notes]. The designations ‘plougher’ and ‘sower,’ are not to be taken literally, as denoting either the oxen themselves, or the persons who engage in husbandry, since we are now in the higher range of thought; but they are to be interpreted spiritually, as exhibiting typically the labors of Christian teachers in accordance with the language of the statute and under the forms of agriculture. The emphasis here lies on the words “in hope,” [which accordingly in the Gr. come first]. The obligation to plough rests on hope, viz., the hope of enjoying the products of the field (comp. 2Ti_2:6). And so in the matter of threshing. [The language here is elliptical]. As in the first clause we must supply to the word “hope” what is mentioned in the second, viz., “of partaking;” so in the second we must supply the verb ‘to thresh,’ or ‘should thresh,’ as suggested by the first. From ignoring this, persons have been betrayed into attempts at alteration, as is shown in the various readings in different MSS. (comp. Osiander). The meaning is: ‘that the teacher is bound to his office in hope of enjoying its compensations’ (Meyer); or, to express it more generally: the obligation to laborious efforts in our calling as laborers in the field of God (1Co_3:9), rests upon the hope, etc.—In 1Co_9:11 he applies what has been said to the particular relation which he and his fellow-laborers sustained to the Corinthian Church in respect of their rights.—If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?—A like antithesis occurs in Rom_15:27. There is no reason for including Barnabas under the strongly prominent ἡμεῖς, we since nothing is known of his labors in Corinth. We may say with Meyer, “that Paul, though speaking categorically, means in fact himself alone. The corresponding collocation in ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν—ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν—we to you—we yours, is emphatic. But the justification of his claim appears all the stronger, from the fact that the recompense to which the laborers are entitled, involves something far inferior to the blessings they have conferred. “Spiritual things” are the blessings which proceed from the Holy Spirit, the doctrines of revelation through which the germs of a Divine life are implanted in the heart which unfold themselves in knowledge, faith, love and hope; “carnal things” are such as belong to the lower natural life. In the figures of ‘sowing’ and ‘reaping,’ it is implied that the obtaining of the lower good is a natural sequence upon the bestowment of the higher, even as the harvest follows upon seed-time. The question: “is it a great thing?” points, however, to the disproportion which exists between the one and the other, q. d., ‘It is a very small thing.’—The subj. (θερίσωμεν) after εί, occurs commonly both in the more ancient Greek (Homer and the lyric poets), and in the later impure style. According to Osiander, it denotes something midway between definiteness and indefiniteness; a definite assertion of the right, with an indefiniteness in regard to its application.

Having thus established his claim to recompense on the ground of having imparted to them an incomparably higher good, he proceeds to set forth his case in still stronger light by comparing himself in this respect with other teachers who, with far less cause, still used their right to support.—If others.—The allusion here is not to false teachers precisely, (as in 2Co_11:12-20), since he is treating of a veritable right; but only to those whose title to their help stood far below his (μᾶλλον).—be partakers of this power over you.—(τῆς ὑμῶν ἐξουσίας)—Ὑμῶν is the objective genitive as in Mat_10:1; Joh_17:2, power of you, for power over you, viz: in reference to the reaping of carnal things, 1Co_9:11.—are not we rather.—The ellipsis is easily filled up from the preceding clause.—After this strong assertion and maintenance of his right, he states what his course had actually been, and the reason of his conduct.—nevertheless we did not use this power,—[not because he dared not, as some might suppose, and thus infer a consciousness on his part of lacking apostolical authority].—but we bear all things.—Στέγειν, as also in 1Co_13:7, and 1Th_3:1, lit. to cover, to protect, so that nothing shall penetrate, [used of vessels containing and holding without breaking], hence, to hold off, to hold out, to forbear, to endure in silence. (Passow II. e. p. 1526,)—in order that we may not present any hinderance,—ἐγκοπήν, a cutting into the path, hence, impediment, hinderance. This would arise from charges of covetousness and self-seeking in the work of the ministry, which his independence of them would obviate.—to the Gospel of Christ,—[a prominent statement of that whose claim overrides every other, and in behalf of which it is fitting that one should do, and endure all things].—After this preliminary statement of how he had renounced his own rights, he adds yet another proof of his title, taken from the analogy presented by the Jewish priesthood. Observe, not heathen priests, for there would be no fitness in appealing to the usages of those in support of his position, since they, were not divinely instituted. And to the usages of the Levitical priesthood he refers, as to a matter already familiar to his readers.—Do ye not know, that those performing the things of the temple.—Ὁυτὰ ἱερὰ ἐργαζ όμενοι, so the priests are first designated.—This may imply the care and ministration of offerings, as ἱερόν often occurs in this sense among classic writers; or the performance of temple services in general. The latter is to be preferred, because the second designation points definitely to the duties at the altar.—live of the temple,—ἐσθίουσιν, lit. eat, i. e., obtain support from the temple, from the tithes, first-fruits, shew-bread, and other gifts brought hither [“Comp. the speech of the Zealots in Jos. B. J. V. 1Co_13:6, δεῖ τούς τῷ ναῷ στρατευομἑνους ἕκ τοῦ υαοῦ τρέφεσθαι,” Stanley].—those waiting at the altar.—παρεδρεύειν comp. 1Co_7:35. The reference of the first of these designations in this verse to the Levites and the second to the priests, is untenable. Both relate to the latter alone, and these only are analogous in their office to the Christian teachers.—share with the altar. Συμμερίζονται indicates that they received a portion of the sacrifices, and so partook with the altar of what was offered.—even so,—points to 1Co_9:13. (Pareus on the contrary: “In consistency with all that has hitherto been said”).—the Lord—i. e., Christ, whose language in Mat_10:10; and Luk_10:7 the Apostle has in mind. “Here we meet with a citation from the sayings of our Lord, which affords fresh proof that Paul must have already had a collection of our Lord’s discourses.” Neander.—also,—καί, in addition to the precepts of the old covenant to which this of our Lord’s corresponds. Were ὁ κύριος=ὁ θεός it would have read: καὶ τοῖς—καταγγέλουσιν ὁ κύριος διέταξε (Meyer).—commanded those preaching the Gospel.—[“It was a command to ministers themselves not to seek their support from secular occupations, but,—to live of the Gospel,—as the priests lived of the temple. This law of Christ is obligatory on ministers and people; on the latter to give, and on the former to seek a support from the church, and not for worldly avocations. There are circumstances, as the case of Paul shows, under which this command ceased to be binding upon preachers. These are exceptions, to be justified, each on its own merits; the rule, as a rule, remains in force.”—Hodge. To defraud ministers of their due is to rob God.—Wordsworth].—ζῇν ἐκ. i. e., the Gospel should be to them the means of support:—[“Observe, that here the Apostle is establishing an analogy between the rights of the sacrificing priests of the law, and of the preachers of the Gospel. Had those preachers been likewise themselves sacrificing priests, is it possible that all allusion to them in such a character should have been here omitted? But as all such allusion is here omitted, we may fairly infer that no such character of the Christian minister was then known. As Bengel remarks on 1Co_9:13 :—“If the mass were a sacrifice Paul would certainly have shaped to it the conclusion in the following verse.”—Alford.].

—————

2. Testimony to his own self-denial in relation to his rights and powers

1Co_9:15-23

15But I have [om. have] used16 none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my [cause for] glorying void.17 16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, [for18 ]woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!19 17For if I do this thing willingly, [of my own accord] I have a reward; but if against my will, [obligatorily] a dispensation [stewardship] of the Gospel is committed unto me. 18What is my20 reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ21 without charge, that I abuse not 19[use not to the full] my power in the Gospel. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, [ins. although I myself am not under the law]22 that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God,23 but under the law to Christ8),that I might gain8 them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as [om. as24 ]weak, that I might gain the weak: 23I am made all things25 to all men, that. I might by all means save some. And this [all things26]I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Co_9:15-18. After again reminding his readers that he had not made use of his rights, so clearly established, he goes on to protest, in the most positive manner, against the suspicion that he designed to avail himself of these arguments in the future.—But I used none of these things—i. e., not the proofs adduced (Chrys.), but (comp. 1Co_9:12) the right itself in its several particulars (1Co_9:4-5).—And I wrote not these things in order that it might be so done,—i. e., as I have written, or “after the examples I have alleged,”—in me,—ἐν ἐμοί, as in Mat_17:12, in my case, and this he confirms with great emphasis.—for good were it for me,—καλόν, suitable, reputable, honorable.—rather to die. There is no need of interpreting ἀποθανεἰν to mean death by hunger [as Chrys., Estius, Billr]. In what follows, the text is much disputed. If, with Lachmann (who, instead of ἤ, supposes νή, comp. 1Co_15:31), and with Meyer, we read οὐδεὶς κενώσει (according to B. D.27 [Cod. Sin.], then there is no need of punctuating, as Lachmann, μου οὐδεις; but it were better to assume, with Meyer (2d ed.), an aposiopesis,* so that after ἤ we are to supply something like χρὴσθι τῇ ἐξουσία ταύτῃ, or μισθὸν λαμβάνειν (which it was incompatible with his feelings to express). Then upon this a new independent sentence would follow. The whole would then be rendered thus: Good were it for me rather to die than (to use this my right, or to receive my reward); my cause for boasting no one shall make void—καύχημα, matter for glorying, not the act of glorying itself; and this, as appears from the context, was the preaching of the Gospel without compensation. “Paul can here mean only a glorying in the presence of men.” Burger—From a failure to perceive the aposiopesis above asserted there have arisen various attempts at amending the text. Because οὐδείς did not suit, τις has been adopted (by others τίς), to which a ἵνα still appeared requisite, making it read: ‘than that any one, etc.;’ and finally the fut. ind. has been changed into the aor. subj. This is the received text. In behalf of οὐδεὶς we have the authority of [Cod. Sin. and] A., which read οὐδεὶς μή. But if the aposiopesis is not allowed, then we must decide for reading of B. ἵνα τις κενώσει: ‘than that any one shall make void.’ Meyer, in Ed. 3. regards the aposiopesis too bold, and takes ἤ as=or, on the other hand, in the sense of, otherwise, in the opposite case. He would then translate: ‘Better for me to die,’ i. e., ‘rather than suffer myself to be supported, I will prefer to die; or, on the other hand, if such a thing need not occur, my boasting none shall make void.’ But this understanding of the passage appears so forced, that we are still disposed to prefer the aposiopesis. [Alford adopts the reading ἵνα τίς κενώσει, and translates: ‘than that any one should make void my (matter of) boasting.’ Wordsworth the same, with the exception of κενώσῃ for κενώσει. Stanley puts a colon after μου. and makes ὀυδεὶς κενώσει, a separate clause, rendering the whole thus: ‘It were better for me to die than my boasting: no one shall make it void.’].

In 1Co_9:16, ff. he assigns the reason for putting so great a stress on discharging his office gratuitously.—For if I preach the Gospel there is for me no matter of boasting.—Καύχημα 1Co_9:6, (materies gloriandi). He means, the mere proclamation of the Gospel was not, in and of itself, anything in which he could boast, in contrast with his opponents. His advantage lay in renouncing his right and preaching without recompense. To interpret εὐαγγελίζομαι to mean: ‘if I take a reward for preaching, is, at all events, contrary to the New Testament usage, and inconsistent with the use of the word in the context.—Why the mere fact of preaching was no ground of boasting he goes on to explain. It was a duty imposed on him, from which he could not escape.—For a necessity is laid upon me.—[It was a moral necessity, put upon him by the call and commission of Jesus, and by the immeasurable obligations he was under to His pardoning grace]; and how imperative this necessity was he shows by pointing to the effects which his refusal to submit to it would draw down upon him.—For woe is unto me if I should not preach the Gospel.—Οὐαι, properly an interj. is here to be taken substantially, and ἐστίν to be supplied. It refers to the Divine judgments which would fall on him if he ventured to disobey the heavenly call. Hence the fearful nature of the necessity, originating primarily in the Divine will, demanding a punctilious obedience, and also the impossibility of any boast in fulfilling it. In this “necessity” Neander thinks he discovers something which distinguishes Paul from the other Apostles. The others had joined themselves to Christ of their own accord; while he had been, as it were, constrained to enter the service. Accordingly, we discern in this word the sense which Paul had of the overwhelming urgency of his calling.—This last statement (and so also the preceding ones, whether the first or the second, but these not primarily) he illustrates and confirms by a denial of the opposite.—For if I do this voluntarily, i. e., on my own motion, of my own accord, without having been obliged thereto—I have a reward,—i. e., from God,—but if involuntarily [i. e., obligatorily, having been called to it by another, whom I could not disobey],—with a stewardship have I been entrusted,—my position is that of a steward, who, when he has done all that he could, has no more than discharged his obligations, and so has no title to a reward, (comp, Luk_17:10). The first of the above cases, he means to say, does not suit his case [“a hypothetical statement,” de Wette says]; since he was constrained to preach by the obligations put on him by a higher will; hence he was in the condition of a steward, who was absolutely dependent on the will of his master, and who, while expecting no reward for the faithful discharge of duties, might yet look for punishment in case he failed. [Stewards, it must be remembered, were usually selected from among the slaves of the establishment, as was Eleazar by Abraham, and Joseph by Potiphar]. This interpretation of Meyer, and in part that of Osiander [adopted also by Hodge, Alford, de Wette] fully satisfies the words and the context.28 To translate the words ἐκών and ἄκων, willingly and unwillingly would hardly suit, if we are to understand the last clause as describing Paul’s case, since we can in no wise predicate reluctance or unwillingness of him in the discharge of his ministry.—But if we unite εἰ δε ἄκων οικ. πεπίστευμαι in one clause, rendering it: ‘but if I am unwillingly entrusted with the stewardship,’ then the word ‘stewardship’ loses its significance for the argument; and it would be the same if we put: ‘I am entrusted with a stewardship,’ in a parenthesis; and to supply the ellipsis of, “if unwillingly” with the words, “I do this” is in any case simpler than to make an apodosis by the addition of ‘I have no reward.’ But to take the words following as the apodosis would be inadmissible on account of the οὖν, then.—The meaning would be entirely changed if overleaping the two clauses: ‘woe is me, etc.,’ and: ‘a necessity is laid upon me,’ we find here the confirmation or explanation of the beginning of 1Co_9:16, so that the idea of gratuitousness (gratis) is involved in ἐκών, and that of the opposite in ἄκων, and in the phrase: ‘I have a reward,’ we understand him to speak of his ‘matter of boasting.’ [Billroth, Bloomfield]. The ἐκών would then indicate that he was managing the thing as his own affair, and was omitting nothing which would serve to further it, and produce results happy and honorable for himself, in which ‘he would have his reward;’ but ἄκων would mean that he was discharging his direct obligations, only so far as to escape the penalty of neglect, and so was acting as a steward, i. e., a slave charged with the domestic economy, so that all reward or boasting would be out of the question. But in such an interpretation there would be 1, a foisting into the words ἐκών and ἄκων as well as into οἱκον. πεπίστευμαι of something foreign to them; and 2, he would, in what follows, be designating that as his reward, which, a little before, appears to be the ground of his having a reward.

After having substituted the term ‘reward’ for that of ‘boasting,’ in 1Co_9:17, he retains the expression, and referring back to 1Co_9:15 (to τὸ καύχημά μου,29 he asks—what then is my reward?—To take this question as implying a negative answer (Meyer) in immediate connection with what precedes—as though the meaning were: ‘since I am a steward, not acting at my option, no reward can avail me, in order that (in accordance with the end appointed by God) I may preach unsupported’ (which, as lying beyond my obligation now really merits a reward)—is, on the one hand, somewhat forced, and, on the other, leads to that which Dr. Baur (Tub., Theol., Jahrb.) objects to Meyer’s interpretation, that it involves the germ of the doctrine of supererogation, in entire contradiction with Paul’s whole mode of thought, since if Paul regarded the gratuitous proclamation of the Gospel as conducive to its success, he must have recognized such a course as obligatory upon him. As Burger says: “not according to the rights belonging to him, but in accordance with his estimate of his own personal relation to his high office (1Co_15:8-9; Eph_3:8; 1Ti_1:15-16), did Paul consider himself bound to do what was not incumbent on the other apostles, and in order that he might demonstrate through his whole life the earnestness and depth of his gratitude for the salvation so undeservedly conferred on him, and the office entrusted to his charge.—[If, however, we regard the first of the two previous clauses as expressing Paul’s case—that in declining support he was showing how freely he accepted the obligation, he was thus rising above the condition of a steward, who was merely discharging his office from necessity, and so was having some occasion for boasting—some reason to look for a reward, we must here regard Paul as proceeding to state what reward he was looking for]. The answer to this question [is variously found; it either] lies in the following words, beginning with ἵνα εὐαγγελιζόμενος [and which may be rendered as in the E. V.],—That when I preach I shall make the Gospel without charge.—This was to him remuneration enough, that the Gospel which he proclaimed should prove no burden to the Church, [that he could enjoy the satisfaction of offering salvation without money and without price to all whom he addressed]. The ἵνα would then introduce the object had in view: “Wherein then does my reward consist? Why, in this, that I make, etc.” Thus the original signification of ἵνα is preserved, θήσω, fut. indic., which elsewhere accompanies ἵνα (yet oftener ὅπως) when some continuous act is spoken of. [Or we may, with Alford, consider these words as simply continuing the question and stating the circumstances in which he is looking for his reward.—What then is my reward, that I while preaching shall render the Gospel without charge?—“ἵνα, like ὅπως in classical Greek, with a fut. indic. points to the actual realization of the purpose with more precision than when followed by the subjunctive. The question in other words would be: “What reward have I in prospect that induces me to preach gratuitously?” The answer to the question would in this case be found in the next verse.].—unto the end that, (εἰς τό).—This may denote either the design in view (‘in order that’), or the simple result (‘so that I shall not, etc.’).—Either would consist with the use of language.—I shall not use my power.—Kαταχρῆσθαι [not as in the E. V. abuse, for this would yield no fit sense here], but as in 1Co_7:31, to use to the full.—in the Gospel,—i. e., in proclaiming the Gospel; [or, still better, “conferred upon me by preaching the Gospel.”—Stanley].

1Co_9:19-23. For being free from all, I enslaved myself to all.—The “for” indicates a connection between this and the previous words: “that I may not use my power.” This connection may be understood, either as implying only a remote relation between the expressions “power” and “free,” and introducing proof of that self-denial, which prompted him to renounce his right, as shown in other respects (so de Wette; in like manner, Osiander: “With an easy transition from the matter of his self-denial hitherto discussed, he passes rapidly on to show how he had exhibited the same in another and indeed the highest degree”); or, in a stricter manner, as though by the expression “my power,” he designated his Apostolic prerogative in general, and the “freedom” he here speaks of were included under it (1Co_9:4); (so Meyer). At all events the connection is moderated by the thought that it was, with him, a fundamental principle, to make no use of his right,—only to give and not to take; and so also to devote himself to others instead of subjecting them to himself or making himself dependent on them, rather than make them dependent on him. [Stanley gives yet another view: “In the first instance, the idea of enslavement to all is suggested by the servile labor he had undertaken, as distinct from the free independence which he might have enjoyed as an Apostle; but he rapidly passes from this to his accommodation to the various feelings of all his converts, in the hope that of this mass he might gain the greater part to the cause of Christ. For the same transition from the idea of servile labor to that of serving generally, comp. Php_2:7 (δούλου).” Alford here finds the answer to the question: What is my reward? “For (q. d., the reward must have been great and glorious in prospect) being free from,” etc.].

This principle of his he exhibits more fully in connection with the purpose he had in view, wherein at the same time his matter of boasting (καύχημα) in this respect may be seen. First, he mentions in general, how, for the sake of a higher object, he surrendered his independence, since, though as Christ’s Apostle, he was dependent on no man, he had made himself dependent on all, had accommodated himself to their customs and prejudices, and in the plenitude of his Apostolic power, had, for their sakes, descended to the low condition of a slave.—that I might gain, κερδήσω is explained by the concluding σώσω (1Co_9:22). It means a winning for Christ or for God’s kingdom by conversion (comp. 1Pe_3:1; Mat_18:15). This was ever deemed by Paul a ‘reward,’ a ‘cause for boasting’ [1Th_2:19-20], although the word in this context is not to be referred precisely to this thought. [Bengel, on the contrary, finely says: “κερδήσω, I may gain, this word well suits with the consideration of a reward.” But Alford adds: “This is not enough; it is actually the answer to the question: “What is my reward?” and it is for this reason that ἵνα—κερδήσω, is three times repeated].—the greater number.—τοὺς πλείονας, as in 1Co_10:5, the larger portion of this company (not: ‘the more’ [as in the E. V.]; nor: ‘as many as possible;’ not yet, because, of the τούς, with Olsh.: ‘those ordained unto salvation by God’). [Alford says: “the largest number of any: that hereafter Paul’s converts might be found to be οἱ πλείονες, the more numerous.” This certainly accords with the ambition of Paul].—The following details point in part to diversities conditioned upon the ante-Christian position of the parties mentioned (Jews, Heathen, 1Co_9:20 ff.), and in part to weaknesses existing in the pale of the Church, that required consideration (1Co_9:22), wherein he more nearly approaches his main theme. But because the same purpose is expressed here also as in what precedes, this, too, must be referred to the ante-Christian state, but not to the exclusion, however, of all allusion to that spoken of in the whole paragraph.—and I became to the Jews as a Jew, in order that I might gain Jews.—To interpret τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις to mean Jewish converts, and the subsequent designation: ‘those under the law,’ of the stricter Pharisaic class among them, is inconsistent with the object in view, viz., that he might gain them, for such were already in a measure gained; and also with the contrast in 1Co_9:21. [Examples of how he became a Jew may be found in Act_16:3; Act_21:26].—to those under the law.—This is only another designation for Jews, describing them according to their peculiar characteristic (Rom_6:14; Gal_3:13; Gal_4:21); and it denotes neither Jews of the stricter Pharisaic class, nor proselytes of righteousness, nor Samaritans, nor Sadducees, who only held to the Pentateuch.—as under the law.—The word as denotes only a conformity in respect to customs, modes of life, and methods of instruction. That he preserved his independence in circumstances where Judaism was insisted upon as the condition of salvation, is evident from Gal_2:3 ff. Besides he asserts the maintenance of his own personal freedom from the law in the following participial clause not parenthetical [which does not appear in the Rec.].—not being myself under the law.—μὴ ὤν αὐτός, etc. Here μή denies the thing as a matter of consciousness, [it being the subjective negative]. That he hereby intended to repel a charge of capricious self-exemption from the law to which he was properly bound, is a doubtful assumption.—to those without law.—By these are not meant proselytes of the gate, as persons who were bound by the law only in part; nor yet such parties as would no more submit themselves to the law’s control; but heathen, properly speaking (comp. Rom_2:12-14), and so designated in contrast with the Jews, since they were not bound by the Mosaic law, and in which respect he conformed to them.—as without law,—in so far as he cast of Jewish ordinances in his intercourse with them (comp. Act_11:3; Act_11:7), and presented the truth to them, not in Jewish, but in Hellenic forms of instruction (comp. Act_17:28; [1Co_8:1-7; 1Co_9:24-27]). [“The word by which he here describes himself (ἄνομος) is the expression used to designate him in the forged Epistle of Peter to James (1 Corinthians 2.) in the Clementines; and seems, therefore, to have been a well-known term of reproach against him among the Judaizers.” Stanley]. For the purpose [therefore] of guarding against all mis-application of the term, as well as under the impulses of pious feeling [being “unwilling to appear, even for a moment, independent of God”], he repels all thought of any heathenish lawlessness (ἀνομία) being here intended, and asserts that, so far as this law had been revealed in its perfection through Christ, he both lived and moved in it.—being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.—Ἔννομος χριστοῦ comp. νόμος χριστοῦ Gal_6:2; Joh_13:34.—θεοῦ and χριστοῦ are genitives of relation and dependence (“Without legal dependence on God, legally dependent on Christ.” Meyer). To be “under law to Christ,” is different from being “under the law,” inasmuch as the consciousness of obligation in one who has become justified in Christ in order to walk worthy of Christ, and to imitate Him in doing the will of God is different from servitude to the law as the means of justification before God (comp. Rom_10:5; Gal. 10:10ff.). [Here again the subjective nature of the assertion as indicated by μή instead of οὐκ must be noted. “Being conscious of not being,—remembering well in the midst of my ‘lawlessness’ (ανομία) that I was not.” Alford. “Paulus non fuit anomus, nedum antinomus.” Bengel].—to the weak.—Under this term he includes those previously mentioned (1Co_9:20-21), persons Who, lacking the higher power of Christ’s spirit, require considerate treatment—when Jews, a mode of intercourse suiting with their law; when heathen, a freedom from the law [So Stanley. But Alford, on the contrary: “The ἀσθενεῖς here can hardly be the weak Christians of 1 Corinthians 8. and Romans 14., who were already won, but those who had not strength to believe and receive the Gospel” (Rom_5:6). To this Hodge well replies; “The word κερδήσω means merely, to win over, to bring to proper views, and therefore may be used in reference to weak and superstitious believers as well as of unconverted Jews and Gentiles.”]—I became weak,—i.e., I entered into their condition in one way and another. This condescension to their peculiarities was, in appearance, a weakness; but, in truth, it was indicative of the highest moral power. If, with de Wette, we understand by the term “weak,” a lack of ability to apprehend the higher moral truths, then the expression, “I became weak,” would denote an accommodation on Paul’s part in the methods of his instruction of them; but this has little in its favor.—Summing up all he concludes—To all—(i.e., “to those just mentioned.” Osiander; “to the generality of men with whom I had to do.” Meyer).—I became all things.—“Omnibus omnia factus est compassione misericordiæ, non simulatione fallaciæ, non mentientis astu, sed compatientis affectu.” Augustine. It was an all-sided adaptation of himself to others,—within the limits of truth, of course, and in those things which were morally indifferent, according to the rule and direction of a love that was intent upon the salvation of souls. [“There are two things to be carefully observed in all cases of concession to the opinions and practices of others: first, that the point conceded be a matter of indifference; for Paul never yielded in the smallest measure to any thing that was in itself wrong. In this his conduct was directly the opposite to that of those who accommodate themselves to the sins of men, or to the superstitious observances of false religions. And secondly, that the concession does not involve any admission that what is in fact indifferent, is a matter of moral obligation. Paul’s conduct in relation to Timothy and Titus shows the principle on which he acted. The former he circumcised because it was regarded as a concession. The latter he refused to circumcise, because it was demanded as a matter of necessity.” Hodge].—in order that by all means I might save some.—[πάντως omnino, or as Meyer, in all ways. Stanley says: “by all means, with the double meaning as in English”].—and all things I do.—πάντα δὲ ποιῶ [see Critical notes]. The “all things” do not refer exclusively to what have just been spoken of,—as would be the case with the feebly supported reading τοῦτο this—although these are not to be excluded. The meaning is: ‘all things which I do, I do,’ etc. [“St. Paul did not become totally and at once, but severally and singly, not absolutely, but respectively, all things to all men.” Wordsworth].—The object of this—on account of the Gospel.—(διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). It is a question whether we have here an independent thought, or whether it is only a more general expression for that which is stated more fully in the following objective clause,—that I may be a fellow partaker of it (with you).—In the latter case, συγκοινωνός is either taken=to further, i.e., an active participation in the work of spreading the Gospel (which, however, does not accord with usage, and would only be a repetition of what has just been said, while by the connective δέ a progress of thought is indicated); or as denoting a participation in the salvation offered by the Gospel—a thought hinted at in the previous clause. In the former case διὰ τό εὐαγγ. must be construed as expressing the object aimed at in spreading the Gospel: “in behalf of the Gospel, for its honor and glory;” but interpreted as expressing the further aim of ‘his doing all things on account of the Gospel,’ the clause ἴνα—γένωμαι must be taken in the sense of becoming a fellow-participant in the salvation of the Gospel. But here again we have the exceptionable repetition (in διὰ τὸ εὐαγγ.); hence the assumption of an epexegesis, with the above correct rendering of συγκοιν. deserves the preference. The meaning then is, that all he did aim at was to become a partaker with them in the salvation of the Gospel. At the same time, the objective end of that concerning which he had just spoken, is not excluded; but he only brings out now the other side, in order to let them see in his own example how his solicitude for his own salvation in fellowship with others, is something which must lie very near the heart of the Christian in all he does; and that this, in all his varied activity, is not a matter to be presumed upon, but must be striven for with the utmost earnestness.—In this thought we find the point of transition to the subsequent exposition, in which by pointing to his own example he presses on the Corinthians the importance of greater solicitude for their own salvation, and of sparing no pains or sacrifices in the attainment of this end (1Co_9:24 ff.). [“Here a new thought is introduced. Up to this point he has been speaking of his self-denial for the sake of others; here he begins to speak of it as for his own sake. It is no longer ‘that I may save some,’ but ‘that I may be partaker of the Gospel with you.’ Do not think that I do not require this for myself. In order to do good we must be good. To extend our Christian liberty to the utmost verge, is dangerous not only for others, but for ourselves also.’ This argument he proceeds to support first from his own example and secondly by the warning of Israelitish history.” Stanley].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Ministry—its claims and its obligations. The regular and professional ministration of God’s Word, requiring the expenditure of time and strength, in providing stated spiritual nutriment for a congregation and in the cure of souls; and in qualifying himself for which a person has spent his property either entirely or in part, founds a claim to the support both of himself and his family, in a manner suited to the position he occupies. This is an ordinance of the Lord himself, who has said: “The laborer is worthy of his hire.” It is a rule, moreover, which reaches down to the lowest grades of animal labor performed for man, and runs through all departments of human society, and must be binding in proportion as the work done is excellent. It must, therefore, be most of all in force in that sphere where the relation of that which is given to that which is received is that of the “spiritual” to the “carnal.”

On the other hand, it becomes a workman on this holy soil to show himself, in accordance with our Lord’s example, to be one to whom “it is more blessed to give than to receive;” so that he shall not only discharge his more general obligations, the neglect of which would subject him to rebuke—not only perform what he is paid for, but shall also be ready to offer all manner of aid at the cost of time and strength, even in cases where no legal obligation binds him so as in this respect to fulfil the Scripture: “Freely ye have received, freely give.” He must appear, not as one dealing in temporal affairs, looking ever for his equivalents, but as one carrying in himself a large liberal spirit, free from ambition and avarice, and all forms of selfishness. By his whole attitude and conduct, by word and deed, he must let it be seen what a joy it is to take that which has freely flowed in upon him, especially that which a partial love has conferred, and let it flow out again in all manner of gracious bestowments, relieving the afflicted, the sick and the needy, and helping on the work of the Gospel, both at home and abroad, promoting the enlightenment and the salvation of mankind at large, of every kind and degree, both within the limits of Christendom and in the regions beyond.

2. Accommodation in the Ministry. Self-denying love is exercised, not only in the renunciation of one’s own rights to support, and in unrewarded toils and sacrifices for others’ welfare, but also in condescending from the heights of superior knowledge and liberty to enter into the narrownesses and weaknesses of others, to accommodate oneself to their spiritual defects and necessities, to freely conform to their ways so as to infuse in them confidence as towards one of their own kind, to speak with them in their own language—with children in a childlike manner, and with adults according to their several powers of apprehension, and so to become all things to all men. And this will be done so genially that those with whom we converse shall not feel it to be a condescension. On the contrary, our whole speech and deportment will seem natural, through the blending power of a sympathizing love. Thus will love fit itself to every variety of forms and customs and habits, and to all spheres of life, doing whatever may be requisite for kindly intercourse, and avoiding or removing whatever hinders it, and holding itself ever ready to enter into all hearts, and win them towards the highest good.—And all this will be done for Christ’s sake, and in accordance with the example of Him who, out of His own Divine love, entered into human nature, stooping to its lowest bent of infirmities, in order to redeem sinners, and lift them up to a life in God.

But as in Christ there is truth, and nothing but truth, so must this conformity be kept within the limits of truth. As in Him there was no self-seeking, no selfish fear of men, or vain desire to please men, so will it be with a proper accommodation. It will be unwarped by such faults. That were a false, immoral compliance, to adapt oneself to the ways of others, especially their religious rites and customs, either for the sake of avoiding persecutions, or of courting favor, or of gaining coveted emoluments and applause, just as did the Jesuits in their missionary labors, as many Christians have done in their intercourse with the heathen, and as Evangelicals did towards the Romanists during the Interim. It is also an exceptionable accommodation when a preacher or teacher, for the sake of maintaining his position, or of obtaining one with a view to subsistence, comes down from the height of his lofty views and clear conceptions, to profess his faith in, and inculcate opinions which are objectionable and degrading, because untrue and superstitious. Equally unworthy and immoral is it also to gesticulate or speak as a worshipper in presence of, or in company with others who believe in a personal God, who can be approached in prayer, although one is a stranger to that faith, and considers such practices as follies, belonging to a lower grade of conceptions; and the more reprehensible is such conduct in proportion as the motives which prompt to it are low and selfish, (comp. Heubner).

[3. The doctrine of supererogation. The Romish divines, as is well known, adduce the 16th verse in support of their doctrine, which teaches the special meritoriousness of works, which, under the promptings of love, exceed the scope of the command enjoined. The reward which Paul here looked for, according to the “annotations in the Rhemish version,” was the “reward of supererogation, which is given to them, that out of aboundant charitie do more in the service of God than they be commanded, as St. Augustine expoundeth it.” The fallacy hero consists in making specific precepts, which are mainly relative and prudential, the absolute rule of duty. Determined by the highest and most universal law, every good that it is possible for man to do, is a matter of obligation. “He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” etc. If Paul therefore knew that by renouncing his right to support he would avoid the appearance of selfishness, remove a stumbling-block in the way of the Gospel, and strengthen his influence, he was bound to renounce his right; and in so doing he obtained only the reward which belongs to all works done in love—the reward of grace. His self-denial was a work of supererogation only in relation to man, but not in relation to God. See Calvin Inst. B. III. 1 Corinthians 14, § 14 ff; B. IV. 1 Corinthians 13, § 12 ff].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[In this chapter we have a self-drawn portrait of the great Apostle—a portrait which vividly represents to us the man, not only through the particular features described, but also in the free, courageous style in which the sketch is made. The object in thus bringing himself to view is to enforce the precepts contained in the previous chapter by his own example, and to prove his right to teach as he did, by his own practice. Accordingly we observe here: 1. Paul’s position a. as a man—“free,” bound by no legal obligations to any, and capable of taking care of himself; b. as an office-bearer—“an Apostle,” holding the very highest authority in the church, as proved by his having seen the Lord, and having had the seal of the Spirit put to his ministry (1Co_9:1-2); c. in his rights, first to domestic solaces (1Co_9:5), and secondly to maintenance, as proved, a. in accordance with the principle of compensation for work (1Co_9:7), β by the law of Moses (1Co_9:8-9), γ by the analogy of the Levitical priesthood (1Co_9:13), 6. by the command of Christ (1Co_9:14). 2. His conduct, a. abnegation of legal claims to support (1Co_9:12; 1Co_9:14); b. endurance of privations and toil (1Co_9:12); c. condescension even to the position of a servant (1Co_9:19); d. kind accommodation to the weaknesses and prejudices of others. 3. His purpose. He designed to continue this course of self-denial at all cost, and rather die than abandon it (1Co_9:15). 4. His motive—the desire of the reward which belongs to the workman who counts duty a privilege, and exceeds the limits of legal obligation in the excess of his love (1Co_9:18), and which comes from gaining the larger number of souls to Christ (1Co_9:19), and which is found in the more certain enjoyment of the Gospel, in fellowship with those for whom he labored (1Co_9:23).

The traits which here shine conspicuous are: consciousness of perfect integrity; a sense of personal dignity as a man and an Apostle; frankness; courage; love in its highest forms of self-sacrifice, condescension and zeal; and wise prudence in the methods chosen for gaining the highest ends.

In all this we have: 1. an instructive picture of a true minister of Jesus Christ; 2. an illustration of the power obtained for the enforcement of precept by appealing to one’s own example; 3. an exhibition of the might and majesty which resides in a self-denying spirit].

Starke.

1Co_9:1.—Faithful ministers find their best support in their calling and office, in their good conscience and Christian walk; and their best apology in their deeds and not in their words.

1Co_9:2 : There are bad preachers who are praised, and good preachers who are blamed; look at the fruits: if these are good then the tree is good also.

1Co_9:7 : Avarice and ingratitude are alike great sins,—the former in ministers, if they labor only as hirelings for a reward; and the latter in the people if they let their ministers suffer.—A three-fold illustration of a right-minded minister (1Co_9:7): the first (that of a warrior) tells of valor and unshaken courage in overturning the kingdom of darkness by the right use of spiritual weapons (1Co_9:25; 2Co_10:4-5); the second (that of a vintner) tells of unwearied labor; the third, (that of a shepherd) tells of constraining love and official fidelity (Ezekiel 34; John 10.).

1Co_9:11 :—The blessings conferred through the ministry are more precious than can be adequately requited by temporal good. Ye hearers, be rich in love; ye ministers, rich in contentment (1 Tim. 4:18; Php_4:11);

1Co_9:13 ff: A faithful worker is worthy of his reward; but lazy, reluctant, luxurious ministers deserve not the good they enjoy.

1Co_9:16 : Preachers must preach; and hearers hear. There is no escape from this. On these things hang life and death.

1Co_9:17 : It is the sure sign of a faithful minister that he discharges his office with such yearnings of affection toward Christ and toward his hearers, as admit neither of indifference, nor idleness, nor reluctance (1Pe_5:2; 1Th_2:8).—Fidelity in office is no special merit (Luk_17:10); yet a faithful servant may look for a reward of grace from Christ (Mat_25:23).—Not ministers only, but all Christians equally should endeavor to remove whatever obstructs the cause of Christ.

1Co_9:19 : The servants of Christ, while exercising Christian love and kindness, and gentleness towards all, must, at the same time, take care to preserve a good conscience, and in no way prejudice their abiding in Christ.—Let those who rule consider themselves as the servants of all (Mar_10:43); and so in matters indifferent let them overlook, yield and suffer much, in order to win those under them, and promote their improvement. This is the method of true love.

1Co_9:20 : A blessed sort of men-pleasing, when it is without sin, unto edification! (Rom_15:2).

1Co_9:21 : Those who associate with the godless for their good, must be careful to abide by the law of Christ; otherwise they will deteriorate rather than improve.

1Co_9:23 : A minister who does not labor himself to become a partaker of the Gospel will never properly labor to make others partake of it.

Berlenbubger Bible.

1Co_9:10 : We must not abide by the shell of Scripture; but break into the kernel. The shell reads “oxen;” but the inner sense means us, patient, laborious ministers, who plough the field of the church, labor in the fear of God, take firm steps in the Divine ways, and spare not but trample on the flesh, in order that the hidden kernel of the spirit may burst the hull, and move men to repentance and the mortification of their earthly affections. And such should be enabled to enjoy the fruits of their spiritual labor in the tokens of gratitude.

1Co_9:11 : It is the part of a true minister to be unwearied in laying in the heart a good foundation, and planting good seeds therein for an after abundant harvest.

1Co_9:12 : To abstain from one’s right is a proper offering.

1Co_9:13 : Men eat at God’s table. He feeds His servants when He gives them of that which belongs to Him.

1Co_9:16 : The must here is not a slavish, but an evangelical must: the love of Christ constrains.

1Co_9:19. In Christianity freedom and service stand together. Where the former is not, there there is not in the heart such a willingness to engage in service. This is true Christian magnanimity—to be free from all, and yet to devote one’s self to all. He who has not the I love so to devote himself is certainly not free, but acts under constraint.

1Co_9:20 ff: Genuine condescension goes counter to flesh and blood; since it is only through a Divine love that a person can be induced to endure, to wrestle, to fight, to turn and twist like a worm in order to accommodate himself to the circumstances and whims of poor ignorant souls, and to surrender, willingly yield, or share in any thing innocent, for the sake of winning them to Christ the better. A minister must bring with him into his office a large pity, since he will be obliged to see much want, and not be able to shape everything on one last. It costs something to associate with the weak and distressed, and the like, whose society men are apt to shun. The mind and example of Christ are to us sufficient law; by these our minds are taken captive and sufficiently assured.

1Co_9:23 : He who labors much to impart the Gospel obtains in return a proportionate share of its blessings. The peace of God which he dispenses will return upon him.

Rieger. [is omitted, being substantially a repetition of the above].

Heubner.

1Co_9:1 : The work which alone endures is that which is performed on the human heart, and a faithful minister has the best opportunity for erecting a monument which shall outlast human records.

1Co_9:3 : Every person is bound to vindicate his conduct to his friends.

1Co_9:7 : There may be claims to a reward without the undue coveting of a reward.—Unthankfulness towards ministers merits earnest rebuke.

1Co_9:8 ff: A man should wait for his reward in hope, not demand it before his work is done.

1Co_9:11 : Manual labor, and the expenditure of time, may be appraised, but not the nobler toil, the superabundant blessing, and faithful heart of a true minister. These God alone can reward with His love.

1Co_9:12 : It is precisely the most faithful minister that has to encounter human wickedness in its most outrageous forms. The most meritorious are often the most poorly paid. In many spiritual occupations one does the work and another gets the pay. Like the Apostle, we should be ready in needful cases to work without reward, and find our recompense in our good works and in the approval of God. The more a minister lives under the pressure of hardship, the righter will the light of his religion shine. [But this fact will not justify the people in putting the pressure on].—In all doubtful cases the conscientious minister will inquire by what course the Gospel will most be benefited, and act accordingly.

1Co_9:14 : A minister should desire only what is necessary for his support, no more. The church should not give him luxuries.

1Co_9:15 : The disinterested minister may, for the sake of vindicating himself, remind his people of his magnanimous conduct.—A minister must have a reputation for disinterestedness. If there is a chance for making large gains, and at the expense of a good name, let him surrender the chance.

1Co_9:16. How foolish it is to boast of having done our duty! The higher the office is, the more disgraceful to our trust. The constraints of duty, to which a pious man freely yields, are irresistible. ‘God has put me here’—this thought should accompany the minister to his latest breath. To retire from work, when not compelled by age or other circumstances, is a very questionable procedure.

1Co_9:18. Joy in serving God, and being assured of his love, is the most strengthening reward. A sense of this makes free and happy ministers.

1Co_9:19 : A faithful laborer assumes many burdens not legally imposed. But when can he ever do more than his duty (Luk_17:10)? We cannot fully perform even what we ought.—Our labor is at best piece-work. In saving souls nothing is too burdensome, nothing too lowly.

1Co_9:20 ff: A pious man may be many sided; for nothing is more manifold than the ways and means of Divine wisdom in the execution of its designs. But there is a great difference between the noble legitimate accommodation of the Christian and the slippery by-ways of worldly cunning.

Footnotes:

[1]1Co_9:1.—The precedence of this clause [thus reversing the order of the two as they stand in our version], is established by A. B. [Cod. Sin.], by almost all the versions, and by other old authorities. [“Possibly the original order was changed to bring the weightiest question into prominence.” Alford].

[2]1Co_9:1.—The Rec. has Ἰσοῦν Χριστόν [with D. K. L.]; others have Χριστόν Ἰσοῦν. Xριστόν is an addition not found in A. B. [Cod. Sin., and is omitted by Alford, Stanley].

[3]1Co_9:2.—Lachmann, Tischendorf [Alford, Stanley], have μου τῆς [to correspond with τὸ ἔργο͂ν μου] (instead of τῆς ἑμῆς); but it is not sufficiently attested.

[4]1Co_9:3.—Αὕτη ἕστίν; Lachmann [Alford, Stanley] read ἕστίν αὕτη, which also is not sufficiently attested. [Yet it is found in A. B. Cod. Sin.].

[5]1Co_9:6. The omission of τοῦ is, indeed, strongly attested, but is to be explained as an attempt to conform with the foregoing clauses.

[6]1Co_9:7.—Rec. has ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ in conformity with what follows, but it is more feebly sustained.

[7]1Co_9:7.—̓̀H is rejected by Lachmann according to weighty testimony; it was, perhaps, omitted to accord with the foregoing clauses.

[8]1Co_9:8. The Rec. has ἥ οὐχὶ καὶ—ταῦτα λέγει [with K. L.]—feeble authority. A probable alteration of what seemed unintelligible. [The true reading: ἤ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα οὐ λέγει, is found in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.].

[9]1Co_9:9.—Griesbach reads: γεγραπται γᾶρ [omitting ἐν τῷ Μωυσές νόμῳ], but without sufficient authority.

[10]1Co_9:9.—κημώσεις [with A. B.2 C. D.2 K. L. Cod. Sin.]; instead of with the Rec. and Lachmann [Stanley], read φιμώσεις. The former is best supported and more probable, because not found in the Sept.

[11]Ver: 10.—In the former of the last two clauses, the best supported order is: ὅτι ὀφείλει ἐπ̓ ἐλπίδι ὁ ἀροτριῶν ἀροτριᾶν, instead of which the Rec. puts ἐπ̓ ἐλπίδι before ὀφείλει, which is a variation of the order. In the second clause some of the better authorities have: τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν, to which the Rec. appends the original ἐπ̓ ἐλπίι. The best accredited text is: ἐπ̓ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν [found in A. B. C. Cod. Sin.]. So Meyer [Alford, Stanley, and Wordsworth].

[12]1Co_9:11.—The Rec. and Lachmann read θερίσομεν, [and so Alford, Stanley, and Wordsworth]. The subj. θείσωμεν is strongly supported, and might have been crowded out by the future form, because grammatically objectionable [A. B. Cod. Sin. have the future].

[13]1Co_9:12.—ὑμῶν ἐξουσίας is far better accredited than the Rec. ἐξουσίας ὐμῶν [being found in A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.]. But τινὰ ἐγκοπὴν is not so well authorized as ἐγκοπήν τινα.

[14]1Co_9:13.—Παρεδρεύοντες is better supported than the Rec. προσεδρεύοντες.

[15][See this subject fully discussed in Andrews’ Life of our Lord, pp. 104–116; Neander, Life of Christ, § 22; Lange’s Leben Jesu, § xiii; Kitto’s Enc., 2d Ed. Art. Jesus Christ, p. 530; and Schaff’s exegetical note in Lange’s Commentary, Mat_13:25].

[16]1Co_9:15.—Οὐ κέξρ. οὐδενί [found in A. B. C. D.1 F. Cod. Sin.] is better sustained than οὐδενὶ κερ. and the Rec. οὐδενί εχρησαμην.

[17]1Co_9:16.—Teschendorf reads: ἵνα τις κενώσει; the Rec. κενώσῃ feebly supported. Others simply τις κενώσει. The original is undoubtedly οὐδεὶς κενώσει, of which τις κενώσει and the Rec. text are emendations. [Kling understanding an aposiopesis after ἥ, renders the passage thus: “It is better for me to die than—my glorying no man shall make void”]. In “Exegetical and Critical,” also Meyer, [also Stanley’s note].

[18]1Co_9:16.—Γάρ is far better supported than the δέ of the Rec. [which Alford calls “a clumsy alteration,” not seeing that γάρ explains ἀνάγκη. The γάρ is found in A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.].

[19]1Co_9:16.—Εὐαγγελίσωμαι is more credited than ζωμαι (Rec.), or ζομαι (Lachmann). [It is found in A. B. C. D. F.].

[20]1Co_9:18.—Mου; Rec., Lachmann, [Stanley] μοι, tolerably well authorized, but by some put after ἐστιν.

[21]1Co_9:18.—The addition, τοῦ χριστοῦ, found in the Rec., is opposed by the best authorities, [being omitted by A. B. C. D.l Cod. Sin., and by all good editions].

[22]1Co_9:20.—The clause μὴ ὠν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, omitted in the Rec. [probably by oversight of the copyist”], is to be accepted according to the most decisive authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.].

[23]1Co_9:21.—The Rec. has θεῷ, χριστῷ κερδήσω. Instead of which θεοῦ, χριστοῦ (genitives of dependence) and κερδάνα are better authorized. In κερδἠσω we have a conformity with 1Co_9:20.

[24]1Co_9:22.—The Rec. has ὡς ἀσθενής, according to many, but not preponderating authorities. It was introduced in conformity with the preceding ones.

[25]1Co_9:22.—The Rec has τα before πάντα, contrary to all the best authorities.

[26]1Co_9:23.—The τοῦτο of the Rec. is very feebly supported. Meyer calls it: “a more accurately defining gloss.” [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin. all read πάντα].

[27][“A figure of speech, in which the speaker breaks off suddenly, as if unwilling or unable to state what was in his mind”].

[28][Calvin, Wordsworth, Stanley, however, adhere to the strict meaning of ἐκών and ἄκων as given in the E. V., viz; ‘willingly’ and ‘unwillingly.’ They apparently regard the γάρ, not as confirming what immediately precedes, but as resuming the general argument. ‘For if I preach the Gospel willingly,—which indeed I do, notwithstanding the obligation imposed upon me, as my unremunerated labor shows, and for the sake of showing which I renounced my claims,—I have a reward, i.e., from God, though not from you; but if I do it unwillingly, and simply because I am compelled to, why then I reduce myself to the condition of a domestic servant who merely acts as he is hidden.’ This interpretation makes Paul intent on showing that he had made that which was a matter of bounden obligation his high privilege, and was fulfilling it in such a manner as to have praise from God. Here was the reason why he would never seek support from the church. One advantage of this view is, that in making the first of the hypotheses state Paul’s case, we naturally connect the expectation of a reward here expressed with the inquiry which he goes on to answer, “What then is my reward?” On it our author goes on to comment].

[29][But why not to what just precedes: ‘I have a reward?’ This were the more natural].

[30]1Co_9:27.—Tischendorf has ὑποπιάζω, but the Rec. and Lachmann, in accordance with the most reliable MSS., have ὑπωπιάζω. [A. B. C. D. (1James , 4 th hand). Sinait. many cursives, Orig., Ephr., (one MS.) Chrys., Theodt., Theophyl., Œcum., have ὑποπιάζω. F. G, K. L., with more than 30 cursives, Euseb.. Serap., and a number of copies of the Greek Fathers, have the Doric ὑποπιάζω. D. (3rd hand) E., and a number of cursives and Greek Fathers, have the Attic. ὑποπιέζω. The Latin writers and versions do not clearly indicate what reading they followed; they hare castigo (vulg.) subjicio, macero, affligo, and domo. Reiche,Matthei and Tischendorf have defended ὑπὁπιάζω. Meyer thinks that this originated in the error of some unskilful transcriber, to whom ὑπω with ω was offensive. The word ὑπωπ is found, however, in classic and Hellenistic Greek (Robinson’s Lexicon), and occurs also in Luk_18:5. As an agonistic phrase, it seems to accord well with a number of expressions in this whole passage. The English critics have unanimously adopted it.—C. P. W.].

[31]1Co_10:1.—The Rec. has δέ instead of γάρ, but in opposition to decisive authorities. The change originated in a mistake with respect to the proper connection.

[32]1Co_10:2.—Lachmann has ἐβαπτίσθησαν, on the authority of good but not decisive MSS.; and as the more difficult reading, ἐβαπτίσαντο (of the Rec.) deserves the preference. [The passive form is more usual among Christian writers, especially with reference to infant baptism, and is given in A. C. D. E. F. G. Sinait. and 15 cursives; but the middle form is attested by B. K. L., Orig., Chrys., and others, and its reciprocal signification was demanded by the Apostle’s purpose, and need not have given offence with regard to the subjects of apostolic baptism. Theophy l. gives ἐβαπτίζοντο, and thus confirms the conjecture that ἐβαπτίσθησαν was a correction.—C. P. W.].

[33]1Co_10:3-4.—The different positions given to the words in 1Co_9:3-4 by different MSS. have no effect upon the sense of the whole passage (see Tischendorf). [A. C, et al, omit αὐτὸ and Sinait. omit to τό αὐτὸ B. C. (2d hand) and Sinait. put πνευματικὸν before βρῶμα and A., with some cursives, put πνέυμ. ἔφαγον. before βρῶμα In like manner in V:4, A., et al., omit αὑτὸ The Rec., “with D. F. K. L., et al., place πὸμα before πνευμ. ἔπιον , while A. B. C. Sinait, et al., place it after those words. The Rec. also pats δὲ immediately before πέτρα, with A. C. D. (2d hand) K. L., and some patristic MSS., but with no cursives of much authority.—C. P. W.].

[34]1Co_10:7.—Instead of ὥσπερ, the Rec. has ὡς, but it is probaldy a correction to conform to the more usual word.

[35]1Co_10:8.—B. D. F. Sinait. omit ἐν before μιᾷ, but A. C. D. (2d and 3d hand) E. K. L. insert it.—C. P. W.].

[36]1Co_10:9.—Lachmann and Meyer have κύριον with B. C. [Sinait.], et al. Meyer thinks that Χριστὀν and θεὀν (A.) are attempts made to explain the true text. But even if Χριστόν had been the true reading, it could easily have given offence to some, who did not see how Christ could be tempted before His incarnation, and so it might have occasioned the insertion of κύριον. [The only authorities for θεόν are A., two cursives, two MSS. of the Slav., and Beda. Χριστόν is adopted by Elzevir, (Rec.) Scholz., de Wette, Osiander, Tisch., Bloomfield and Wordsworth, after D. E. F. G. K. L., a number of cursives, the Ital., Vulg.. Syr. And other versions, and Theodt., Marcion, Chrys., Œcum., Theophyl., Iren., and several Latin Fathers. Alford and Stanley prefer κύριον, as more likely to be explained by the insertion of Χριστὀν and θεόν from the margin. On the other hand, Dr. Hodge thinks Χριστόν the more difficult, and so the more probable reading, and that “while the temptation was strong to change χρ. into κύρ. no one would be disposed to put the former word for the latter.” Much zeal has been shown with respect to these various readings on account of their supposed bearing upon the preëxistence of Christ, and Epiphanius does not hesitate to charge some with an intentional falsification of the text.—He says: ὁ δὲ Μαρκίων ἀντὶ τοῦ κύριου Χριστόν ἐποίησεν.—C. P. W.].

[37]1Co_10:9.—The Rec. after καθώς has καὶ, but the authority for it is too feeble. [A. B. C. D. F. Sinait. omit it, while only D.(3d hand) K. L., et al., the Syr., Chrys. and Theodt. insert it. It was probably inserted as more usual before καθώς, while the only reason for its omission would have been to conform to 1Co_10:8.—C. P. W.].

[38]1Co_10:11.—The Rec. has πάντα after ταῦτα δὲ, but it is wanting in B. C., et al., and has different positions in the sentence, thus giving reason to suspect that it must be an addition. [C. K. L., with several versions and fathers, insert it, and D. F. Sinait., and some versions and fathers, read: πάντα δὲ ταῦτα.—C. P. W.].

[39]1Co_10:11.—Lachmann has τυπικῶς, and his reading is well sustained. It is possible that τύποι (Rec.) is an attempt to make the passage conform to 1Co_9:6. [Lachmann’s reading is supported by A. B. C. K. Sinait., and some versions and fathers.—C. P. W.].

[40]1Co_10:11.—Rec. has κατήντησεν, but Lachm. and Tisch. have κατήντηκεν, The latter is better, but both readings have good authorities. [B. D. E. F. G. Sinait., and some Greek Fathers, have the perfect, and Meyer and Alford think the other an instance of the alteration which copyists frequently made of the perfect into the aorist form. The other word, however, may be an equally appropriate instance of the alteration which the Alexandrian critics frequently made of the aorist into the perfect.—C. V. W.].

[41]1Co_10:13.—The. Rec. inserts ὑμᾶς after δύνασθαι, but it is feebly sustained, and it is probably an addition naturally suggested by the context for the completion of the sense. [It is cancelled by Lachm., Tisch., Alford, Stanley and Wordsw. after A. B. C. D. E. F. G. L. Sinait., and most of the versions and Fathers.—C. P. W.].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. Paul’s Gracious Example.

CHAPTER 9

1. The Apostle’s rights. (1Co 9:1-14).

2. He waives his rights for the Gospel’s sake. (1Co 9:15-23).

3. The race-course and the crown. (1Co 9:24-27).

The great principle laid down in the previous chapter to forego one’s Christian liberty, the Apostle Paul enforced by his own example. He was an Apostle and had seen the Lord Jesus, from whom he had received his apostleship (Gal 1:1). From the second verse we learn that some had not recognized him as an Apostle; these must have been false teachers. But the Corinthians knew he was an Apostle. Through his testimony they had been converted so that he could say “for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” As an Apostle he had certain rights, but he did not make use of them. All his rights and his privileges had been given up by him. The law also affirmed his claim, for it forbad the muzzling of the oxen that treadeth the corn. Those that sow spiritual things are perfectly entitled to reap carnal (material) things. Other teachers used this God-given right and accepted their material things; and he had a greater claim for this upon the Corinthians, for he taught them first. “Nevertheless we have not used this power, but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ.” The Lord certainly had ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. All this he had not used; he had not made use of what was his right. Nor did he write these words that his claims might be satisfied. He did not want his glorying made void. What was his glory? Not the preaching of the Gospel in itself. Necessity was laid upon him and “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel!” “For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward; but if not of mine own will, I am entrusted with a stewardship.” (The translation of (1Co 9:17 in the Authorized Version is faulty.)

What is his reward? In what does he glory? His answer is “that when I preach the gospel, I make the gospel without charge, so as not to use, as belonging to me, my right in the gospel.” In this way the gospel was not hindered; it was made more effective. For being free from all, free from the control of any person, he had made himself the servant of all, that he might win as many as he could. This was his reward, to preach the gospel gratuitously. Governed by love he had become a servant of all. His rights were given up, but he did not insist upon his Christian freedom, but gave up his liberty in order “that I might by all means save some.” He did not seek his own things but the things of Christ. The most blessed self-sacrifice on behalf of Christ and the Gospel of Christ marked his service. How few such servants, who give up, self-denying, self-sacrificing, waiving their rights for the Gospel sake, are found today in Christendom. But how many are seeking their own!

The concluding paragraph is fully in line with these statements of the Apostle. He uses as an illustration the Greek stadium, the race-course, well known to the Corinthians on account of the games on the isthmus of Corinth. In order to run successfully and obtain the prize, self-denial was necessary. There was a prize for him who won. Spiritually, not one, but all may obtain the prize, if all run well. And in the race every man that striveth for the mastery, to obtain the victory, is temperate in all things. They do it to obtain a fading crown, a wreath; but we have the promise of a crown that fadeth not away, an everlasting crown.

And if those who strive for earthly honor deny themselves, how much more should we practice self-denial in view of the crown of glory! “I therefore so run not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air; but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” What did the Apostle mean by the latter statement? The word “castaway” is found also in the following passages: Rom 1:28; 2Co 13:5-7; 2Ti 3:8; and Tit 1:16. In these passages it is translated by “reprobate.” In Heb 6:8 it is translated “rejected.” Did he mean that he feared to be lost himself? Or did he only fear disapproval as a workman, whose service is rejected and to be counted unworthy of a crown? The statement does not clash with the teaching of the eternal security of the believer. The Apostle personally does not fear for himself, as no true believer needs to fear, but he applies an important principle to himself. Salvation and a holy walk are inseparably connected. Preaching alone will not do, but the truth must be lived.

“There would be difficulty indeed, if the apostle spoke of having been born again and afterwards becoming a castaway: in this case life would not be eternal. But he says nothing of the sort. He only shows the solemn danger and certain ruin of preaching without a practice according to it. This the Corinthians needed to hear. Preaching or teaching truth to men without reality, self-judgment and self-denial before God, is ruinous. It is to deceive ourselves, not Him who is not mocked. Nor do any Christians more deeply need to watch and pray than those who are much occupied with handling the word of God or guiding others in the ways of the Lord. How easy for such to forget that doing the truth is the common responsibility of all, and that speaking it to others ever so earnestly is no substitute for their own obeying it as in the sight of God!” (William Kelly)

It is a warning against an empty profession of Christianity without the manifestation of the power. Where there is true salvation and eternal life, it is proved by a godly walk. The Apostle in these personal statements shows that all the blessed knowledge he had and with it the most positive assurance of eternal glory, did not make him careless, but prompted him to still greater earnestness and continued self-denial. He knew nothing in his life of the self-indulgence which characterized so many in the Corinthian assembly; he kept his body under. But he also knew, as every Christian should know, that the grace which had saved him, which taught him to live soberly, righteously and godly, would also keep him and enable him to persevere through all hindrances.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Paul the Free Servant of Christ.

Defending his Christian liberty:

v. 1. Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ, our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?

v. 2. If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

v. 3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,

v. 4. Have we not power to eat and to drink?

v. 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

v. 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

v. 7. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who plants a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Paul had stated the guiding principle of his life to be: All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient, chap. 6:12. In accordance with this principle he had been practicing self-denial out of love to the Lord and to his brethren, he had renounced his own rights and privileges for the sake of winning souls for Christ and spreading the Gospel. And therefore he now defends his position and his Christian liberty in one of the most elevated and beautiful passages in the entire New Testament. He has the same rights as other Christians, as other apostles, and if he chooses not to exercise these rights, this fact does not deprive him of his privileges, but should rather cause the Corinthian Christians to esteem him all the more highly for his self-denial in their behalf. These were his prerogatives: He was free, he had become a partaker of the liberty wherewith Christ had made him free, and in the exercise of this liberty was accountable to no man; he was an apostle, and this in spite of the fact that some deceivers were casting suspicions on the certainty of his call, 2Co 11:13. So far as the Corinthians are concerned, his apostleship is substantiated in two ways: He has, with the eyes of the body, seen the Lord, their common Lord, Jesus Christ, Act 9:1-43, when the Lord appeared to him on the way to Damascus; the Corinthians themselves are his work, the concrete evidence of his calling, through his work the Lord had created them to be new creatures, the preaching of the Gospel had been effective in their case, what they had received was the Lord’s grace and blessing which is given through the word and work of His servants.

The apostle feels constrained to emphasize this point: If to others I am not an apostle, at any rate, most certainly, I am to you. In other congregations, where the Judaizing teachers were very strong, they might deny his apostleship, in their view or opinion his claims may not be well founded. But so far as the Corinthians were concerned, they surely cannot but acknowledge him, since the simple fact of their conversion was a constant confirmation of his contention: they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. The Lord affixed His seal to the work of His servant by making his words powerful for the conversion of the Corinthians. See Joh 3:33. Paul had been among the believers of Corinth with the signs of an apostle, 2Co 12:12, and the Lord had given the increase in such a signally wonderful manner as to confirm Paul’s commission in the eyes of all men that were not blinded by prejudice. And this is the apology, the answer to his critics, to those that question his apostleship, that wish to investigate his claims; he simply points to the Corinthian congregation, as he needed no other defense.

Paul now vindicates other rights: Is it that we have not the right to eat and to drink? Does anyone question our claim to maintenance? Mar 6:10; Luk 10:7; Luk 22:30. He had the right to expect that the people whom he served should make proper provision for his support, that he might live at the expense of the congregation in whose interests he was laboring. Another right: Have we not power to take about with us a Christian sister as wife? He maintains his right to be married if he so chooses. It is not only a right of Christian ministers that they may enter holy wedlock, but the apostle even declares it to be a matter of Christian liberty for a traveling preacher, a missionary, to be married and to take his wife along to the various stations. For a congregation to prefer an unmarried pastor because his maintenance will not require such large amounts of money is to impose a condition which cannot be made to conform with Scriptures. The other apostles made use of their right, and their wives usually accompanied them. The brothers (step-brothers, cousins) of the Lord Jesus followed the custom of the Jews in being married, and of Peter it is expressly stated that he had a wife. Note: The expression, "brothers of the Lord," may be taken literally. For, as one commentator has it, "the statement, ’born of the Virgin Mary,’ is an article of the Church’s creed; but the question whether she bore children afterwards involves no point of Christian faith. " A final right: Is it that only I and Barnabas have not the power to stop working, to give up manual labor for our own support? Barnabas, who had been associated with Paul in the early labors in Asia Minor, Act 4:36; Act 11:22; Act 13:14, had disposed of his property in Jerusalem for the benefit of the congregation and had followed the example of Paul in supporting himself, even when on missionary trips, by the labor of his hands, a fact which Paul here openly acknowledges. Incidentally, this reference to his former colleague shows that their difference of opinion, Act 15:37-38, did not result in a lasting estrangement, but that the two leaders adjusted their difficulty, even though they continued to hold their individual opinion as to their preference in the matter. Paul insists that they were not under obligation to work for their livelihood while they preached, which implied that they should not misunderstand him, but should rather realize that his intention was not to burden them, 2Co 12:16. So the three rights which Paul argues for "in fact amount to the one which Paul contends for in the sequel: he might justly have imposed his personal support, and that in the more expensive character of a married man, upon the Christian communities for which he labored, thus sparing himself the disadvantages and hardships of manual toil."

With three parables the apostle illustrates his right and his power to receive maintenance at the expense of the congregation, the figures being taken from the camp, the vineyard, and the flock: Who ever serves in the army at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Or who acts as a shepherd to a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock? In case someone should serve as soldier at his own private charges, in case someone should go to the trouble of planting a vineyard and not use the fruit, in case a shepherd should have charge of a flock and not use the part of the milk which was his portion, he would be doing something out of the ordinary and could boast a goodness which no man demanded of him, for the rule was altogether the other way. Note that all three figures find their application in the work of a faithful minister: the valiant soldier, fighting the battles of the Lord; the indefatigable vine-dresser, busy with the plants of the Lord’s vineyard; the faithful shepherd, feeling the responsibility for every sheep and lamb of the Lord’s flock.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:1-27 Continuing the argument begun in 8:1 (see study note on 8:1–11:1), Paul cites personal examples of his giving up his own rights for the sake of other people.

9:1-2 These four rhetorical questions each expect a positive answer. The first, following his discussion in 8:1-13, is an assertion of Paul’s freedom from Jewish ritual obligations—though, as he later emphasizes (see 9:19-23), he freely accommodates himself to the practices of Jews in his desire to win them to Christ. The other three rhetorical questions are assertions of Paul’s apostolic authority, which was apparently being questioned by some in Corinth. • For those who might be skeptical, the reality of Paul’s apostolic calling was verified by his firsthand encounter with Jesus our Lord on the road to Damascus (see 15:8; Acts 9:3-6, 17). Also, the Corinthians themselves, who came to faith through Paul’s evangelism (see Acts 18:1-11), were proof (literally the seal) of his status as an apostle.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 9:1. Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος;) am I not free? am I not an apostle?) There is a transposition of these two clauses in the present received reading:[68] but Paul first lays down the proposition, I am free; then, the reason of it [by aetiology. Append.], I am an apostle; and there is a hendiadys in this sense, I am entitled not only to Christian, but also to apostolic liberty. We have a chiasmus[69] in the discussion of the subject: for in it he first claims for himself the apostleship, 1Co 9:1-3, then he asserts his liberty, and that too as an apostle, 1Co 9:4-5; 1Co 9:19, [whereas in the statement of subject, 1Co 9:1, ‘free’ comes first, ‘apostle’ next]. That, which free is in the adjective, 1Co 9:1, ἐξουσία, power, is in the substantive, 1Co 9:4; comp. 1Co 8:9.—οὐχὶ—εὥρακα, have I—not seen?) Observe the firmness of the apostle.—τὸ ἔργον μου, my work) A testimony derived from actual facts, which is the strongest.

[68] AB Vulg. Memph. Syr. Orig. 4,266 b, support the order as in Bengel D G fg later Syr. put ἀπόστολος before ἐλεύθερος, as in Rec. Reading.—ED.

[69] See Appendix.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_9:1. The first two questions bring out the fact that he was seemingly exalted far above any such consideration and renunciation on his own part as he had announced in 1Co_8:13; the third question corroborates the full purport of the second; and the fourth places him in probative relation to his readers, whom Paul καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς μαρτυρίαν καλεῖ, Theodoret.

ἐλεύθερος] free, dependent upon no man. Comp 1Co_9:19.

ἸΗΣΟῦΝ … ἙΏΡΑΚΑ] Observe the solemnity of the phrase; his readers knew what was implied in it on his lips. The reference here is not to his having seen Christ in His earthly life, which would have had nothing to do with his apostleship, and which, moreover, cannot be proved to have taken place in the case of Paul at all,certainly not from 2Co_5:16,but to the sight of the glorified Jesus, which was first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him to be an apostle (Act_9:17; Act_22:14 f., Act_26:16; Act_15:8), and was often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Act_18:9; Act_22:17 f.; 2Co_12:1).[1394] It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later appearances (Estius, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann), since they, too, were granted to the apostle as such, and in connection with his apostolic relation to Christ; they could only serve to confirm his position of equality in the apostleship, and in this bearing were doubtless familiar to his readers from Pauls own lips.

ἐν Κυρίῳ] does not belong to ἔργον; just as little does it to ὑμεῖς (Pott), or to ὑμεῖς ἐστε alone (Rückert), but is meant to bring out the Christian character of the whole τὸ ἔργον μ. ὑμεῖς ἐστε. For out of Christ, in whom (as the object of faith) the Christian lives and moves, outside of this element of the new life and standing, the Corinthians, who owed their Christian existence to the apostle, were not his work. The rendering: by the help of the Lord, is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of those who adopt it understand Κύριος of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Rückert, al[1395], following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp 1Co_4:15.

[1394] Baur takes advantage of this stress laid on the fact of having seen Christ, to support his hypothesis as to the close connection of the Petrine and the Christ-party. See against this Räbiger, p. 128 f. According to Schenkel, the allusion is to the visions of the Christ-party (the existence of which he has first of all to assume). The true view is, that Paul is here indicating how, in respect of this point also, he stands in no whit behind the original apostles. Ἐπειδὴ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐκλήθη, εἶχον δὲ δόξαν οἱ ἀκόστολοι παρὰ πᾶσι μεγίστην ὡς τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου θεάς ἠξιωμένοι, καὶ τοῦτο προστέθεικεν, Theodoret. And it is no lower thing to have seen Christ in His glory than to have seen Him in His humiliation upon the earth. Comp. Calvin. As against the interpretations which make this a visionary beholding of Christ (Baur, Holstein, al.), see Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 220 f. How very distinctly Paul himself describes, especially in Act_22:14, a bodily appearance! See also Gal_1:1, comp. with ver. 15. Nothing contrary to this can be proved from the words ἑωρακέναι and ὀφθῆναι (1Co_15:8), since these do not determine the kind of seeing and appearing. Comp. e.g. the use of the latter term in Act_7:26 of a bodily appearing.

[1395] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 9:1-6 . § 27. PAUL’S APOSTOLIC STATUS. The Ap. is ready to forego his right to use the idolothyta, wherever this claim hurts the susceptibilities of any brother (1Co 8:13 ). He is “free” as any man in Cor [1274] in such respects; more than this, he is “an apostle” (1Co 9:1 ), and the Church of Cor [1275] is witness to the fact, being itself his answer to all challengers (1Co 9:2 f.). If so, he has the right to look to his Churches for maintenance , and that in the ordinary comfort of married life a claim unquestioned in the case of his colleagues in the apostleship (1Co 9:4-6 ).

[1274] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1275] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

1Co 9:1 . οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; This question, arising out of the foregoing §, properly comes first. The freedom supposed is that of principle; in 1Co 9:19 it will take a personal complexion. P. is no longer bound by Mosaic restrictions in the matters under dispute ( cf. 1Co 9:21 , 1Co 10:29 , Gal 2:4 ; Gal 4:12 ; Gal 5:1 ); he holds the right belonging to every emancipated Christian. Far beyond this reaches the question, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος ; which P. answers by putting two other questions, one to his own consciousness, the other to that of his readers: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?” Ἰησοῦν … ἑόρακα ( cf. Act 7:55 ; Act 9:5 ; Act 9:17 ; Act 22:8 ; Act 26:15 ) is a unique expression with P.; it describes not a spiritual apprehension, the γνῶναι Χοιστὸν of the believer, nor the ecstatic visions which he had sometimes enjoyed in a state of trance (2Co 12:1 ff.), but that actual beholding of the human and glorified Redeemer which befell him on the way to Damascus; from this dated both his faith and his mission (Act 9:1-32 , Gal 1:10-17 ). Paul seldom uses “Jesus” as the name of our Lord distinctively, always with specific ref [1276] to the historical Person ( cf. 1Co 12:3 ; 1Co 12:1 , 1Th 4:14 ; Eph 4:21 ; Phi 2:10 ; 2Co 4:10-14 ). The visible and glorious man who then appeared, declared Himself as “Jesus”; from that instant Saul knew that he had seen the crucified Jesus risen and reigning. Asking of his new-found Lord, “What wilt Thou have me to do?” he received the command out of which his commission unfolded itself. Personal knowledge of the Lord and a “word from His mouth” (Act 22:14 ) were necessary to constitute an Apostle in the primary sense, the immediate “emissary” of Jesus ( cf. Mar 3:13 , Act 1:21 f.); in virtue of this experience, P. classes himself with “the other App.” (1Co 15:7 ff., Gal 1:16 f.); his right to do so was in due time acknowledged by them (Gal 2:6-9 ). The great interview, in its full import, was Paul’s own secret; his Apostolic power, derived therefrom, was manifest to the whole world (2Co 3:1 ff; 2Co 12:12 ), the Cor [1277] Church supplying a conspicuous proof.

[1276] reference.

[1277] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 9:1-14. ST PAUL’S DEFENCE OF HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

This chapter is devoted to a defence of the Apostolic authority of St Paul, but there is an under-current of thought connecting it with the last which may easily be missed. In ch. 8 St Paul has been exhorting the Corinthians to sacrifice their own personal predilections for the benefit of others. In 1Co 9:13 he declares himself to be ready to act upon this principle to the uttermost. But some may say, ‘Fine doctrine this, but does the Apostle practise what he preaches?’ (Robertson). He is about to give a proof of his sincerity by referring to his sacrifice of self for the good of others, when he anticipates in his mind the reply, You have no power to do otherwise: you are not an Apostle at all; and he replies to each of these statements in his usual fervid way, by asking in regard to each of them, Is it really then true? This connection of ideas is strengthened by the reading in the text. See Critical Notes. The argument is admirably summarized by Bp Wordsworth thus: ‘Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle? Am I not your Apostle?’

1. ἐλεύθερος … ἀπόστολος. This is the order of אAB, Vulg. Peshito. Rec. inverts the order with DEFG, Vetus Lat. and one MS. of Vulg.

1. οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑώρακα; One distinction drawn by St Paul’s opponents between him and the other Apostles was that they had seen and associated with Christ, while he had not. He rebuts this in the form of a question. He had seen the Lord (1) in the way to Damascus (Act 9:3; Act 9:17); (2) after his return to Jerusalem (Act 22:17, cf. 1Co 9:14 of the same chapter, and Act 9:26; Gal 1:18); (3) at Corinth itself (Act 18:9, where observe that the Greek word does not signify dream, since it is used of the burning bush in Act 7:31 as well as of the transfiguration in Mat 17:9); (4) on some occasion not specified (2Co 12:1), but probably during the Apostle’s sojourn in Arabia (Gal 1:17), unless indeed it be the vision above-mentioned in Acts 22.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:1-27.] He digressively illustrates the spirit of self-denial which he professed in the resolution of ch. 8:13,—by contrasting his rights as an Apostle with his actual conduct in abstaining from demanding them (vv. 1-22). This self-denying conduct he further exemplifies, vv. 23-27, for their imitation. See Stanley’s introductory note; and Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. pp. 61, 457, edn. 2.

1.] He sets forth, (1) his independence of men (contrast ver. 19); (2) his apostolic office (for the order, see var. readd.):—(3) his dignity as an Apostle, in having been vouchsafed a sight of Christ Jesus our Lord;—(4) his efficiency in the office, as having converted them to God.

ἐλεύθ.] So that the resolution of ch. 8:13 is not necessitated by any dependence on my part on the opinion of others.

ἑώρακα] Not, during the life of our Lord on earth, as Schrader, nor is such an idea supported by 2Co 5:16; see note there;—but, in the appearance of the Lord to him by the way to Damascus (Act 9:17; ch. 15:8: see Neand. Pfl. u. Leit. p. 151, note); and also, secondarily, in those other visions and appearance,—recorded by him, Act 18:9 (?), 22:18,—and possibly on other occasions since his conversion. οὐ μικρὸν δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἀξίωμα ἦν, Chrys. Hom. xxi. p.180.

ἐν κυρίῳ is not a mere humble qualification of τὸ ἔργον μου, as Chrys. ib., τουτέστι τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἔργον ἐστίν, οὐκ ἐμοῦ,—but designates, as elsewhere, the element, in which the work is done: they were his work as an Apostle, i.e. as the servant of the Lord enabled by the Lord, and so in the Lord. See ch. 4:15.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:1-27. THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE

I have not asked you to forego more rights than I forego myself. For the sake of others I surrender, not only what any Christian may claim, but what I can claim as an Apostle.

1 Can it be denied that I am a free agent, that I have the authority and independence of an Apostle? I have seen our Lord face to face and He made me His Apostle, and you who were won over to Him through me are a standing proof of my Apostleship. 2 It may be possible for other Christians to question whether I am an Apostle or not, but you at least cannot do so, for your very existence as a Christian Church is the seal which authenticates my Apostleship. 3 There you have my answer to those who challenge my claim.

4 Surely we are free to do as we think best about eating and drinking at the cost of the Churches, 5 to do as we think best about taking with us on our journey a Christian sister as a wife, as also the rest of the Apostles do, and the brethren of the Lord, and Peter. 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas that are not free to do as we think best about working no longer for a living? 7 No soldier on service finds his own outfit and rations. If you plant a vineyard, you expect to partake of the produce, and if you tend cattle, you expect to get a share of the milk.

8 I am not saying all this merely from a worldly point of view. 9 The Divine Law assumes just the same principle. In the Law of Moses it stands written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain. Do you think that it was merely out of consideration for the oxen that God caused that to be written? 10 Surely He was looking beyond them, and it is really for us preachers that He says this. No doubt it was in our interest that this law was enacted; because thus the principle is laid down that the plougher ought not to plough, and the thresher ought not to thresh, without a good prospect of sharing in the profit. 11 Well then, if it is we who in your hearts sowed the seeds of spiritual life, is it a very outrageous thing that we out of your purses shall reap some worldly benefit? 12 If others get their share of this right of maintenance from you, have not we who taught you first a still better right? Nevertheless, we did not avail ourselves of this right. On the contrary, we put up with every kind of privation, rather than cause the spread of the Glad-tidings of Christ to be in any way hampered. 13 Of course you know that those who are engaged in the temple-services are maintained out of the temple-funds; those who serve at the altar share the sacrifices with the altar. 14 On the same principle the Lord directed that those who proclaim the Glad-tidings should out of this work get enough to live on. 15 But I have availed myself of none of these pleas.

Now do not think that I write all this in order that the maintenance due to preachers should henceforth be granted in my case. Indeed not; for it would be better for me by far to die than submit to that: no one shall make void my glorying in taking nothing for my work. 16 It is quite true that I do preach the Glad-tidings; but there is no glorying about that: it is a duty which I must perform,—must, because it will be the worse for me if I do not perform it. 17 If I did this spontaneously, I should have my pay: but seeing that I do it because I must, it is a stewardship which has been entrusted to me. 18 What pay then do I get? Why, the pleasure of being a preacher who gives the Glad-tidings free of charge, so as not to use to the full a preacher’s right to maintenance.

19 So far from claiming my full rights, I submit to great curtailments. For, free and independent though I am from all men, yet I made myself all men’s slave, in order that I might win more of them. 20 Thus to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews. That means that to those under the Mosaic Law I became like one of themselves (although, of course, I am nothing of the kind), that I might win those under the Law. 21 To the Gentiles who are free from the Law I became like one of them (although, of course, I am not free from God’s law; on the contrary, I am under Christ’s law), that I might win those who are free from the Law. 22 To the men of tender scruples I became like one of them, that I might win such people as these. In short, to all kinds of men I have assumed all kinds of characters, in order at all costs to save some. 23 But all this variety I practise for one and the same reason, that I may not keep the Gospel to myself but share its blessings with others.

24 You know that the competitors in a race all run, but only one gets the prize. 25 You must run like him, so as to secure it. Now, every one that competes in the games is in all directions temperate. They verily aim at winning a perishable crown, but we one that is imperishable. 26 I accordingly so run as being in no doubt about my aim; I so fight as not wasting blows on the air. 27 Far from it; I direct heavy blows against my body, and force it to be my slave, lest my preaching to others should end in my own rejection.

It is a mistake to regard this chapter as an independent section in defence of the writer’s claim to be an Apostle. It is part of the discussion of the question as to eating food that has been offered to idols, in the midst of which it is inserted. Christians may eat such food, without fear of pollution; but in doing so they may harm other Christians: therefore, where there is risk of harming others, they should forbear. To show that this forbearance ought not to seem hard, he points out that his habitual forbearance is greater than that which he would occasionally claim from them. As in 6:1, he begins with animated questions. The conjecture that 9:1-10:22 is part of the letter mentioned in 5:9 is not probable.

1. Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθεροσ; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; This is the order of the questions in the best texts (see below). ‘Have I not the freedom of a Christian? Have I not the rights of an Apostle?’ Logically, this is the better order; but even if it were not, the evidence for it is too strong to be set aside on such grounds. It is the thought that he forbears to claim, not only what any Christian may claim, but also the exceptional claims of an Apostle, that makes him digress on an explanation of what an Apostle may claim. In v. 19 he glances back at his general independence. Cf. Gal 2:4, Gal 2:5.

οὐχὶ Ἱ. τ. Κ. ἡμῶν ἑώρακα; This question and the next vindicate the claim made in the second question. He is certainly an Apostle, for he has the essential qualification of having seen the Risen Lord (Act 1:22, Act 2:32, Act 3:15, Act 4:33, etc.), and his preaching has had the power of an Apostle (2Co 3:1 f., 2Co 12:12). The reference is to the Lord’s appearance to him on the way to Damascus,—ὤφθη κἀμοί (15:8); an appearance which he regarded as similar in kind to the appearances to the Eleven on the Easter Day and afterwards. Whether he is also referring to the experiences mentioned in Act 18:9, Act 22:17, and 2Co 12:2-4 is uncertain. It is a mistake to say that we are not told that he saw the Lord who spoke to him on the way to Damascus. This is expressly stated, Act 9:17 (ὀφθείς), 27 (εἶδεν), 22:14 (ἰδεῖν).* Note that in this important question we have the stronger form of the negative, which is specially frequent in this argumentative Epistle (1:20, 3:3, 5:12, 6:7, 8:10, 10:16, 18). In the N.T. Epistles it is almost confined to this group of the Pauline Epistles.

Nowhere else does St Paul use the expression ‘I have seen Jesus the Lord’, and he seldom uses the name ‘Jesus’ without ‘Christ’ either before or after. See notes on Rom 1:1, pp. 3 f. When he does use the name ‘Jesus’ he commonly refers to our Lord’s life on earth, especially in connexion with His Death or Resurrection (1Th 1:10, 1Th 1:4:14; 2Co 4:10-14). In Rom 4:24 we have ‘Jesus our Lord’ as here, and in both cases the reference is to the risen Jesus. The use of ‘Jesus’ without ‘Christ’ is very rare in the later Epistles: once in Philippians (2:10), once in Ephesians (4:21), and not at all in Colossians or the Pastoral Epistles. See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 23, 107; Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 135; Selbie, Aspects of Christ, pp. 71 f., a careful discussion of the question whether it is possible to separate the Christ of St Paul from the Jesus of history. See also the lectures of Dr. Moffatt and Dr. Milligan in Religion and the Modern World, Hodder, 1909, pp. 205-253. The Christ who appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus declared Himself to be the historic Jesus whom Saul was persecuting, and he thus not merely saw Jesus our Lord, but received a ‘voice from His mouth’ (Act 22:14). That rested on his own testimony; but the fact of his conversion and the work that he had done since that day was known to all (4:15; 2Co 12:12).

τὸ ἔργον μου. The founding of the Corinthian Church was a work worthy of an Apostle: ab effectu jam secundo loco probat suum Apostolatum (Calv.). Edwards quotes meum opus es (Seneca, Ep. 34). Lest he should seem to be claiming what he disclaims in 3:5-7, he adds ‘in the Lord’: only in that power could such a work have been accomplished (3:9, 4:15).

The order of the first two questions adopted above (ἐλεύθερος before ἀπόστολος) is that of א A B P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Orig. Tert. The other is that of D E F G K L, Goth., which with P, Arm. insert Χριστόν either before or after Ἱησοῦν. א A B, Am. and other versions omit Χριστόν.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. The example of abnegation given by Paul. 9:1-22.

IT is easy, from what we have just said, to understand the link which connects the following passage with the question treated by the apostle. It is nevertheless true that the subject which he proceeds to handle receives so considerable a development, that it is difficult to resist the idea that he had special reasons for expounding it here with so many details. This supposition is confirmed by the allusions to a secret hostility against his apostleship, which occur in abundance in the first three verses of the chapter, and still more clearly by a passage in the Second Epistle, where the odious accusations of his adversaries, in regard to this disinterested conduct on the part of the apostle, are dragged to the light of day. We see, in fact, from 2Co 12:11-18, that instead of admiring St. Paul’s abnegation, his enemies at Corinth turned it into a weapon against him, alleging that if he did not make his Churches maintain him, it was because he did not feel himself to be the equal of the true apostles, and that, moreover, he found other ways of indemnifying himself for the self-denial which he seemed to exercise. Our First Epistle to the Corinthians already assumes all this; but for prudential reasons Paul as yet lets it barely appear. In 1Co 9:1-3 he establishes the reality of his apostleship; then he deduces from it, 1Co 9:4-14, his apostolical right to maintenance. He afterwards explains, 1Co 9:15-18, the real motive which had led him to decline the exercise of this right; finally, in 1Co 9:19-22, he shows how the principle of abnegation which he has just professed extends to his whole mode of acting in the exercise of his ministry.

Vv. 1. “Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?”

These accumulated questions betray the emotion which seizes the apostle as he approaches this delicate subject. Before showing why he has renounced his rights, he must prove that those rights exist, and, to this end, that he is truly an apostle. If, with the T. R., we begin with the question: Am I not an apostle? it can only signify: “Am I not free to use the rights which this office confers on me?” But this question would come rather abruptly after the preceding verse, and the two. last questions of the verse connect themselves much more directly with the idea of apostleship than with that of liberty. We must therefore begin with the latter, according to the Alex.: “Am I not free?” This question is also more naturally connected with the last idea of the previous chapter. We shall find the apostle closing (1Co 9:19-22) with the same idea of Christian liberty with which he had begun. This liberty of Paul’s is liberty to eat sacrificed meats, and in general to free himself wholly, when he thinks good, from Jewish usages (1Co 9:19-20).

From his liberty as a Christian, Paul passes, in the second question, to his apostolic dignity and to the rights which he possesses as an apostle. The verb οὐκ εἰμί, am I not, is placed before the predicate in the two questions, because it is on the idea of being that the emphasis lies: “Am I not really?” An apostle is one sent immediately by the Lord, who alone can confer such a mandate. But the call to the apostleship implies a personal meeting with Christ, and hence the third question: Have I not seen...? When, at Jerusalem, it was wished to elect an apostle to take the place of Judas, the two candidates were chosen among those who had companied with Jesus, “from the baptism of John to the ascension, to be witnesses of His resurrection” (Act 1:22). If Paul had merely heard the good news, like all other believers, from the lips of the Twelve, whatever might have been his gifts, he could never have claimed the title of an apostle. And hence the term: I have seen, in this context, cannot refer either to any instance in which Paul might have seen Jesus at Jerusalem during His earthly ministry, or to a simple vision which the Lord might have granted him. This term can only designate the positive historical fact of the appearing of Jesus on the way to Damascus. It was never believed in the primitive Church that an accidental meeting with Jesus, or a vision, such as that of the dying Stephen, could give a right to the title of apostle; comp. 1Co 15:8 and Act 22:14.

The Alex. reject the word Christ to retain only the word Jesus, and rightly; for we have to do here with the historical personage who appeared to Paul, with Him who said to him: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” The title our Lord denotes this Jesus as Head of the Church, who alone is entitled to confer the apostleship; comp. Gal 1:1 and Act 1:26.

But the Lord’s appearing to Paul was known mainly, if not exclusively, from his own account; to deny it his adversaries had only therefore to cast doubt on his sound sense or good faith. Hence the apostle adds a new proof of his apostleship, borrowed from the experience of the Corinthians themselves, the founding of their Church by him, Paul; this is the subject of the fourth question. The force of this argument is less in the fact itself of the founding of the Church than in the Lord’s co-operation powerfully manifested in the course of this work. The words ἐν κυρίῳ, in the Lord, bear on the whole question, and not only on the words ἔργον μου, my work; they are the true point of support for the conclusion to be drawn. We know from the passage 1Co 2:1-5 the weak, unarmed, trembling condition in which the apostle felt himself when he founded this Church. So this work could be attributed only to Christ’s power acting through his weakness and itself touching hearts. It is to this experience of Christ’s co-operation in the work of His servant that Paul appeals in the two following verses, which are specially connected with this last question, and state the conclusion of it.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter IX

The apostle illustrates the duty of foregoing the exercise of our rights for the good of others, by a reference to his giving up his undoubted right to be supported by the church, vv. 1-18. He shows that in other ways he accommodated himself to the opinions and prejudices of others, 1Co_9:19-23. He reminds his readers that nothing good or great could be attained without self-denial, 1Co_9:24-27.

The Right of Ministers to an Adequate Maintenance. The Necessity of Self-denial 1 Corinthians 9:1-27

Having in the preceding chapter urged on the strong the duty of foregoing the use of their rights for the sake of their weaker brethren, the apostle shows how he had acted on that principle. He was an apostle, and therefore had all the rights of an apostle. His apostleship was abundantly clear, because he had seen the Lord Jesus and was his immediate messenger; and his divine mission had been confirmed, at least among the Corinthians, beyond dispute. They were the seal of his apostleship, 1Co_9:1-3. Being an apostle, he had the same right to be supported and to have his family supported, had he chosen to marry, as Peter or any other apostle, 1Co_9:4-6. This right to adequate support he proves, First, from the principle which lies at the foundation of society, that the laborer is worthy of his reward, 1Co_9:7. Secondly, from the fact that this principle is recognized in the Old Testament, even in its application to brutes, 1Co_9:8-10. Thirdly, from the principles of commutative justice, 1Co_9:11. Fourthly, from the fact that the Corinthians recognized this right in the case of other teachers, 1Co_9:12. Fifthly, from the universal recognition of the principle among all nations. Those who served the temple were supported from the temple, 1Co_9:13. Sixthly, from the express ordinance of Christ, who had ordained that those who preached the gospel should live by the gospel, 1Co_9:14. This undoubted right Paul had not availed himself of, and he was determined, especially at Corinth, not to avail himself of it in the future. By so doing he cut off occasion to question his motives, and gave himself a ground of confidence in resisting his opponents which he was determined not to relinquish, 1Co_9:15-18. This was not, however, the only case in which he abstained from the exercise of his rights for the good of others. He accommodated himself to Jews and Gentiles in every thing indifferent, that he might gain the more, 1Co_9:19-23. Such self-denial the heathen exercised to gain a corruptible crown should not Christians do as much to gain a crown that is incorruptible? Without self-denial and effort the prize of their high calling could never be attained, 1Co_9:24-27.

1Co_9:1

Am I not an apostle? am I not free?‹10› have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

The order of the first two of these questions is reversed by most editors on satisfactory external and internal evidence. Am I not free? That is, am I not a Christian, invested with all the liberties wherewith Christ has made his people free? Am I not as free as any other believer to regulate my conduct according to my own convictions of what is right; free from any obligation to conform to the opinions or prejudices of other men? This, however, is a freedom which I have not availed myself of. Nay more, Am I not an apostle? Besides the rights which belong to all Christians, have I not all the prerogatives of an apostle? Am I not on a level with the chief of the apostles? Who of them can show a better title to the office? There were three kinds of evidence of the apostleship.

1. The immediate commission from Christ in the sight of witnesses, or otherwise confirmed.

2. Signs and wonders, and mighty deeds, 2Co_12:12.

3. The success of their ministry.

No man could be an apostle who had not seen the Lord Jesus after his resurrection, because that was one of the essential facts of which they were to be the witnesses, Act_1:22. Neither could any man be an apostle who did not receive his knowledge of the gospel by immediate revelation from Christ, for the apostles were the witnesses also of his doctrines, Act_1:8; Act_10:39; Act_22:15. Gal_1:12. The necessity of this immediate mission and independent knowledge is insisted upon at length in the epistle to the Galatians. In proof of his apostleship Paul here appeals only to two sources of evidence; first, to his having seen the Lord Jesus; and second, to the success of his ministry. Ye are my work in the Lord. That is, either, you in the Lord, your being in the Lord (i.e. your conversion), is my work; or, the words (ἐν κυρίῳ) may mean by the Lord, i.e. by his co-operation. The former explanation is to be preferred, as the apostles object is to state in what sense they were his work. It was as being in the Lord. The connection of this verse, and of the whole chapter, with what precedes is obvious. His design is to show that he had himself acted on the principle which he urged on others. Neither as a Christian nor as an apostle had he insisted upon his rights, without regard to the prejudices of others or the good of the church.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

By the Lord.

Before he proceedeth any further in his proposed manner of things offered to idols he would show the cause of all this mischief, and also take it away: to wit, that the Corinthians thought themselves not bound to depart from an iota of their liberty for any man’s pleasure. Therefore he propoundeth himself for an example and that in a matter almost necessary. And yet he speaketh generally of both, but first of his own person. If (saith he) you allege for yourselves that you are free, and therefore will use your liberty, am I not also free, seeing I am an Apostle?

He proveth his Apostleship by the effects, in that that he was appointed of Christ himself, and the authority of his function was sufficiently confirmed to him amongst them by their conversion. And all these things he setteth before their eyes, to make them ashamed for that they would not in the least wise that might be, debase themselves, for the weak’s sake, whereas the Apostle himself did all that he could to win them to God when they were utterly reprobate and without God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Blessed Paul, in the work of his ministry, not only met with opposition from those without, but discouragement from those within. He was under reproach; false brethren questioned his apostleship, and were very industrious to lessen his character and sink his reputation; particularly here at Corinth, a place to which he had been instrumental in doing much good, and from which he had deserved well; and yet there were those among them who upon these heads created him great uneasiness. Note, It is no strange nor new thing for a minister to meet with very unkind returns for great good-will to a people, and diligent and successful services among them. Some among the Corinthians questioned, if they did not disown, his apostolical character. To their cavils he here answers, and in such a manner as to set forth himself as a remarkable example of that self-denial, for the good of others, which he had been recommending in the former chapter. And, 1. He asserts his apostolical mission and character: Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? To be a witness of his resurrection was one great branch of the apostolical charge. "Now," says Paul, "have not I seen the Lord, though not immediately after his resurrection, yet since his ascent?" See Co1 4:8. "Am I not free? Have I not the same commission, and charge, and powers, with the other apostles? What respect, or honour, or subsistence, can they challenge, which I am not at liberty to demand as well as they?" It was not because he had no right to live of the gospel that he maintained himself with his own hands, but for other reasons. 2. He offers the success of his ministry among them, and the good he had done to them, as a proof of his apostleship: "Are not you my work in the Lord? Through the blessing of Christ on my labours, have not I raised a church among you? The seal of my apostleship are you in the Lord. Your conversion by my means is a confirmation from God of my mission." Note, The ministers of Christ should not think it strange to be put upon the proof of their ministry by some who have had experimental evidence of the power of it and the presence of God with it. 3. He justly upbraids the Corinthians with their disrespect: "Doubtless, if I am not an apostle to others, I am so to you, Co1 9:2. I have laboured so long, and with so much success, among you, that you, above all others, should own and honour my character, and not call it in question." Note, It is no new thing for faithful ministers to meet with the worst treatment where they might expect the best. This church at Corinth had as much reason to believe, and as little reason to question, his apostolical mission, as any; they had as much reason, perhaps more than any church, to pay him respect. He had been instrumental in bringing them to the knowledge and faith of Christ; he laboured long among them, nearly two years, and he laboured to good purpose, God having much people among them. See Act 18:10, Act 18:11. It was aggravated ingratitude for this people to call in question his authority.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

CHAPTER IX.

St. Paul vindicates his apostleship, and shows that he has

equal rights and privileges with Peter and the brethren of our

Lord; and that he is not bound, while doing the work of an

apostle, to labour with his hands for his own support, 1-6.

He who labours should live by the fruit of his own industry, 7.

For the law will not allow even the ox to be muzzled which

treads out the corn, 8-10.

Those who minister in spiritual things have a right to a

secular support for their work, 11-14.

He shows the disinterested manner in which he has preached the

Gospel, 15-18.

Now he accommodated himself to the prejudices of men, in order

to bring about their salvation, 19-23.

The way to heaven compared to a race, 24.

The qualifications of those who may expect success in the games

celebrated at Corinth, and what that success implies, 25.

The apostle applies these things spiritually to himself; and

states the necessity of keeping his body in subjection, lest,

after having proclaimed salvation to others, he should become a

castaway, 26, 27.

NOTES ON CHAP. IX.

Verse 1. Am I not an apostle?] It is sufficiently evident that there were persons at Corinth who questioned the apostleship of St. Paul; and he was obliged to walk very circumspectly that they might not find any occasion against him. It appears also that he had given them all his apostolical labours gratis; and even this, which was the highest proof of his disinterested benevolence, was produced by his opposers as an argument against him. "Prophets, and all divinely commissioned men, have a right to their secular support; you take nothing: - is not this from a conviction that you have no apostolical right?" On this point the apostle immediately enters on his own defence.

Am I not an apostle? Am I not free?] These questions are all designed as assertions of the affirmative: I am an apostle; and I am free - possessed of all the rights and privileges of an apostle.

Have I not seen Jesus Christ] From whom in his personal appearance to me, I have received my apostolic commission. This was judged essentially necessary to constitute an apostle. See Act 22:14, Act 22:15; Act 26:16.

Are not ye my work] Your conversion from heathenism is the proof that I have preached with the Divine unction and authority.

Several good MSS. and versions transpose the two first questions in this verse, thus: Am I not free? am I not an apostle? But I cannot see that either perspicuity or sense gains any thing by this arrangement. On the contrary, it appears to me that his being an apostle gave him the freedom or rights to which he refers, and therefore the common arrangement I judge to be the best.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. Am I not free? He confirms by facts what he had stated immediately before, — that he would rather never taste of flesh during his whole life, than give occasion of stumbling to a brother, and, at the same time, he shows that he requires nothing more from them than what he had himself practiced. And, assuredly, natural equity requires that whatever law is imposed by any one upon others, should be submitted to by himself. More especially a Christian teacher should impose upon himself this necessity, that he may have it always in his power to confirm his doctrine by an exemplary life. We know by experience, that it is a very unpleasant thing that Paul required from the Corinthians — to refrain, for the sake of their brethren, from making use of the liberty that was allowed them. He could scarcely have demanded this, if he had not taken the lead and shown them the way. And he had, it is true, promised that he would do this, but, as he might not be believed by all on his simply promising for the future, he makes mention of what he had already done. He brings forward a remarkable instance, in respect of his having denied himself the liberty which he might otherwise have used, purely in order that he might give the false Apostles no occasion for calumniating. He had preferred to earn his food with his own hands, rather than be supported at the expense of the Corinthians, to whom he administered the Gospel.

He treats, however, at great length of the right of the Apostles to receive food and clothing. This he does, partly for the purpose of stirring them up the more to forego many things for the sake of their brethren after his example, because they were unduly tenacious in the retaining of their own rights, and partly for the purpose of exposing more fully in view the unreasonableness of calumniators, who took occasion for reviling from what was anything but blameworthy. He speaks, also, interrogatively, in order to press the matter home more closely. The question — Am I not free? is of a general nature. When he adds — Am I not an Apostle? he specifies a particular kind of liberty. “If I am an Apostle of Christ, why should my condition be worse than that of others?” Hence he proves his liberty on the ground of his being an Apostle.

Have I not seen Jesus Christ? He expressly adds this, in order that he may not be reckoned inferior in any respect, to the other Apostles, for this one thing the malevolent and envious bawled out on all occasions — that he had received from the hands of men whatever he had of the gospel, inasmuch as he had never seen Christ. And, certainly, he had not had converse with Christ while he was in the world, but Christ had appeared to him after his resurrection. It was not a smaller privilege, however, to have seen Christ in his immortal glory, than to have seen him in the abasement of mortal flesh. He makes mention, also, afterwards of this vision, (1 Corinthians 15:8,) and mention is made of it twice in the Acts, (Acts 9:3, and Acts 22:6.) Hence this passage tends to establish his call, because, although he had not been set apart as one of the twelve, there was no less authority in the appointment which Christ published from heaven.

Are not ye my work? He now, in the second place, establishes his Apostleship from the effect of it, because he had gained over the Corinthians to the Lord by the gospel. Now this is a great thing that Paul claims for himself, when he calls their conversion his work, for it is in a manner a new creation of the soul. But how will this correspond with what we had above — that

he that planteth is nothing, and he that watereth is nothing? (1 Corinthians 3:7.)

I answer, that as God is the efficient cause, while man, with his preaching, is an instrument that can do nothing of itself, we must always speak of the efficacy of the ministry in such a manner that the entire praise of the work may be reserved for God alone. But in some cases, when the ministry is spoken of, man is compared with God, and then that statement holds good — He that planteth is nothing, and he that watereth is nothing; for what can be left to a man if he is brought into competition with God? Hence Scripture represents ministers as nothing in comparison with God; but when the ministry is simply treated of without any comparison with God, then, as in this passage, its efficacy is honorably made mention of, with signal encomiums. For, in that case, the question is not, what man can do of himself without God, but, on the contrary, God himself, who is the author, is conjoined with the instrument, and the Spirit’s influence with man’s labor. In other words, the question is not, what man himself accomplishes by his own power, but what God effects through his hands.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(1) Am I not an apostle?—Better, Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? such being the order of the words in the better MSS. Thus the thought grows more naturally out of the previous chapter than it seems to do in the English version. He had mentioned his solemn resolve to give up a freedom to which he had a right in regard to eating meat. He had on another occasion, in regard to his right of maintenance by the Church, also voluntarily sacrificed his freedom, and the Jewish party had in consequence denied the existence of the rights, and questioned his apostolic dignity. He asks, with abrupt emphasis, “Was it because I am not free to demand such support? My freedom in this case is as real as in that other case when you questioned it, and to which I shall now refer. Was it because I am not an Apostle?”

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?—To have seen Christ was a necessary qualification for the Apostolate (Act_1:21). From the manner in which the Apostle here asks the question, and does not answer it, it would seem that although some small minority might, for some party purpose, have at some time questioned it, yet that the fact was generally admitted and universally known that St. Paul did actually see the Lord at the time of his conversion (Act_9:4), and on other occasions (Act_18:9; Act_22:17).

Are not ye my work in the Lord?—This is a further proof of his Apostleship, and therefore of his right or freedom to have demanded support from the Church. (See 1Co_4:15.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free?.... The Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate Latin versions, put the last clause first; so the Alexandrian copy, and some other copies; and many interpreters are of opinion that it is the best order of the words; the apostle proceeding by a gradation from the less to the greater, having respect either to his freedom in the use of things indifferent, as eating of meats, &c. for though he did not think fit to use his liberty, to the wounding of weak consciences, it did not follow therefore that he was not free, as some might suggest from what he had said in the latter part of the foregoing chapter: or he may have respect to his freedom from the ceremonial law in general; for though, for the sake of gaining souls to Christ, he became all things to all men; to the Jews he became a Jew, that he might gain them; yet in such a manner as to preserve his liberty in Christ, without entangling himself with the yoke of bondage. Some have thought he intends, by his liberty, his right to insist upon a maintenance, and that he was no more obliged to work with his hands than other persons, of which he treats at large hereafter; but to me it rather seems that the words stand in their right order; and that, whereas there were some persons that either denied him to be an apostle, or at least insinuated that he was not one, nor was he to be treated as such, he goes upon the proof of it; and the first thing he mentions is his freedom, that is, from men; no man had any authority over him; he was not taught, nor sent forth, nor ordained by men as a minister, but immediately by Jesus Christ, as apostles were; they were set in the first place in the church, and had power to instruct, send forth, and ordain others; but none had power over them; and this being the apostle's case, proved him to be one; he was an apostle, because he was free:

have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? He had a spiritual sight of him by faith, but that did not show him to be an apostle; this is what he had in common with other believers: whether he saw him in the flesh, before his crucifixion and death, is not certain; it is very probable he might; yet this was no more than what Herod and Pontius Pilate did; but he saw him after his resurrection from the dead, to which he refers, Co1 15:8 and designs here, as a proof of his apostleship, this being what the apostles were chosen to be eyewitnesses of, Act 10:41 and publish to the world: now our apostle saw him several times; first at the time of his conversion, next when in a trance at Jerusalem, and again in the castle where the chief captain put him for security, and very probably also when he was caught up into the third heaven:

are not you my work in the Lord? as they were regenerated, converted persons, and were become new creatures; not efficiently, but instrumentally; they were God's workmanship, as he was the efficient cause of their conversion and faith; his only, as an instrument by whom they believed; and therefore he adds, "in the Lord"; ascribing the whole to his power and grace: however, as he had been the happy instrument of first preaching the Gospel to them, and of begetting them again through it; of founding and raising such a large flourishing church as they were; it was no inconsiderable proof of his apostleship.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Ver. 1. Am I not an apostle, &c.] That is to say, Do I require you to do anything more than I myself do daily, in parting with my proper rights? All things in a minister should be exemplary, and for imitation; Tit 2:7; "In all things show thyself a pattern of good works." The word τυπος, there used, signifies a thing that makes the stamp on the coin, or the mould whereinto the vessel is cast and shaped.

Have I not seen the Lord?] viz. In visions and ecstasies. The false apostles reported him no apostle because he had not conversed with Christ in the flesh. It is ordinary with seducers to detract from the truth’s champions, that they may be the better esteemed of. Thus Bellarmine rejecteth the fathers and others that make not for him as heretics. To Iraneus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Luther (said he) I answer, Omne manifesti haeretici sunt, they are all manifest heretics. So Arminius’s course was to detract from the authority and fame of Calvin, Zanchius, Beza, Martyr, &c., that he might build himself upon better men’s ruins. (Synod. Dordec. Praefat.) The Jesuits speak most basely of St Paul, a making much against many of their tenets; and stick not to teach in their pulpits, that he was not secure of his preaching but by conference with St Peter; nor that he dared publish his Epistle till St Peter had allowed them. Zuinglius mentioneth some bold fellows in his time, A. D. 1519, who spake very contemptuously of this great apostle: Quis tandem Paulus, &c. Calvin telleth that Quintinus the Libertine called him Vas fractum, a broken vessel. And Leo Judae, in his preface to Bullinger’s book against the Catabaptists, noteth, that albeit there were various sorts of those sects, and all at odds among themselves, yet they all concurred in this, that they vexed and disparaged the godly preachers of the truth. And do they not still antiquum obtinere, hold to their old wont?

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Am I not an apostle? - This was the point to be settled; and it is probable that some at Corinth had denied that he could be an apostle, since it was requisite, in order to that, to have seen the Lord Jesus; and since it was supposed that Paul had not been a witness of his life, doctrines, and death.

Am I not free? - Am I not a free man; have I not the liberty which all Christians possess, and especially which all the apostles possess? The “liberty” referred to here is doubtless the privilege or right of abstaining from labor; of enjoying as others did the domestic relations of life; and of a support as a public minister and apostle. Probably some had objected to his claims of apostleship that he had not used this right, and that he was conscious that he had no claim to it. By this mode of interrogation, he strongly implies that he was a freeman, and that he had this right.

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? - Here it is implied, and seems to be admitted by Paul, that in order to be an “apostle” it was necessary to have seen the Saviour. This is often declared expressly; see the note at Act 1:21-22. The reason of this was, that the apostles were appointed to be witnesses of the life, doctrines, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and that in their “being witnesses” consisted the uniqueness of the apostolic office. That this was the case is abundantly manifest from Mat 28:18-19; Luk 24:48; Act 1:21-22; Act 2:32; Act 10:39-41. Hence, it was essential, in order that anyone should be such a witness, and an apostle, that he should have seen the Lord Jesus. In the case of Paul, therefore, who was called to this office after the death and resurrection of the Saviour, and who had not therefore had an opportunity of seeing and hearing him when living, this was provided for by the fact that the Lord Jesus showed himself to him after his death and ascension, in order that he might have this qualification for the apostolic office, Act 9:3-5, Act 9:17. To the fact of his having been thus in a miraculous manner qualified for the apostolic office, Paul frequently appeals, and always with the same view that it was necessary to have seen the Lord Jesus to qualify one for this office, Act 22:14-15; Act 26:16; 1Co 15:8. It follows from this, therefore, that no one was an apostle in the strict and proper sense who had not seen the Lord Jesus. And it follows, also, that the apostles could have no successors in that which constituted the uniqueness of their office; and that the office must have commenced and ended with them.

Are not ye my work in the Lord? - Have you not been converted by my labors, or under my ministry; and are you not a proof that the Lord, when I have been claiminG to be an apostle, has owned me “as an apostle,” and blessed me in this work? God would not give his sanction to an impostor, and a false pretender; and as Paul had labored there as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly commissioned of God. A minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his labors in proof that he is sent of Him. And one of the best of all arguments that a man is sent from God exists where multitudes of souls are converted from sin, and turned to holiness, by his labors. What better credentials than this can a man need that he is in the employ of God? What more consoling to his own mind? What more satisfactory to the world?

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Am not I free? The apostle in this place wishes to teach the Corinthians, how careful and solicitous they should be not to give cause for scandal to their neighbour, and how anxious for his spiritual welfare, informing them, that as he refused to take even what he had a just right to, as a minister of the altar, that is to live by the altar, so they must do in like manner, abstaining even from things lawful, for the good of religion. (Estius) --- Am not I an apostle? &c. St. Paul here, to the 20th verse, answers those reflections, which the new preachers at Corinth made against him and Barnabas, as if they were only an inferior kind of apostles. To this he answers, that he had seen Jesus Christ, who appeared to him. He tells the Corinthians, that they at least, ought to respect him as their apostle, who had converted them. He tells them, that when any persons ask about his apostleship, he has this to say for himself, that he not only laboured as an apostle in converting them, but also laboured without taking of them what might supply him and his companions with necessaries, as to meat and drink. He insists upon this particular circumstance, to shew he did not preach Christ for gain-sake; and at the same time brings seven or eight proofs to shew that he, and all who preach the gospel, have a power and a right to be maintained with necessaries by them to whom the preach. 1. He had a title to be supplied with necessaries, as being an apostle. 2. And by them, as being their apostle. 3. By the example of a soldier, who has a right to be paid: of a husbandman, who has a right to partake of the fruit of his labours: of a shepherd, nourished by the milk of the flock. (ver. 7) 4. He brings the example of those who threshed, or trode out the corn by oxen, as it was formerly the custom, that the threshers, nay even the oxen, when treading out the corn, were not to be muzzled according to the Scripture, (Deuteronomy xxv.) but were to eat, and to be fed with the corn or straw; much more men that labour, are to be fed with the fruit of their labours. (ver. 8. 9. 10.) 5. Nothing is more reasonable that to supply those with corporal and temporal things, who labour to procure spiritual and eternal blessings for others. (ver. 11.) 6. They who preached to the Corinthians after St. Paul, were maintained by them; had not he and Barnabas as much right as they? (ver. 12.) 7. He shews it by the examples of the ministers and priests in the law of Moses, who had a share of the sacrifices and victims offered, and who, serving the altar, lived by the altar. (ver. 13.) 8. He brings the authority of our Saviour Christ, who said to his apostles, (Matthew x. 10.) that a labourer is worthy of his meat, or of his reward, as it is said, Luke x. 7. But St. Paul puts them in mind, (ver. 15.) that he did not make use of his right, as to any of these things: that he does not write in this manner, to get or have any thing of them hereafter: nay, he makes warm protestations, says St. John Chrysostom,[1] that he will take nothing of them; that he will preach without putting others to any cost; (ver. 18.) that he will accept of nothing, lest thereby he put any obstacle to the gospel, or gave any person occasion to say he preached for gain. He tells them, it is better for him to die, than, by taking any thing of them, to make void this, which he has to glory in, and to justify himself against his backbiting adversaries: the sense is, that he is willing to spend his life as well as his labours among them, sooner than in these circumstances receive any temporal reward from them. Yet when the circumstances were different, he received of the Philippians (Philippians iv. 15.) enough to supply him in his necessities. He also tells them here, that he does not pretend to glory of boast for having preached: this being a necessary duty. --- For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward. The sense seems to be, if I do this office cheerfully, and with a right intention to please God only, I shall have a copious reward prepared for such a labourer: if unwillingly, and imperfectly, and not with a pure intention, I cannot expect such a reward; though still a dispensing of it is entrusted to me; that is, it is always my duty to preach. Others, by willingly, understand the doing of it in so perfect a manner, as not to receive any thing, and unwillingly, when they would scarce do it, at least so zealously, unless they received what would maintain them. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. John Chrysostom, Greek: om kb, p. 382. Greek: meta sphodrotatos arneitai.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Chapter Introduction

In the greater part of this chapter, the apostle proceedeth in his former discourse, not speaking particularly to the case of eating meat offered to idols, but to the general point, viz. That it is our duty to abate of our liberty, when we see we cannot use it without harm to other Christians. And here he proposeth to them his own example, who had restrained himself in three things, to two of which he had a liberty, and yet avoided it, and that not to prevent their sinning, but only their suffering, and that, too, only by being by him over-burdened:

1. As to eating and drinking.

2. Abstaining from marriage, by which he might have been more chargeable to them.

3. Requiring maintenance of them for his labour amongst them. As to both which he declares he had from God’s law a liberty, but had forborne to use that part from which the church in that state might be prejudiced.

Am I not an apostle? Some that are puffed up or seduced, will, it may be, deny that I am an apostle, a preacher of the gospel of the greatest eminency, immediately sent out by Christ to preach his gospel; but will any of you deny it?

Am I not free? Have I not the same liberty that any of you have in things wherein the law of God hath no more determined me than you? What charter of liberty hath God given to any of you more than he hath to me?

Have I not seen Jesus Christ? Did not I see Christ in my going to Damascus? Act 9:5; 22:13,14; and when I was in my ecstasy, when I was rapt into the third heavens? 2Co 12:2-4; in prison? Act 23:11. He was the only apostle we read of, who saw Christ after his ascension.

Are not ye my work in the Lord? If others will not look upon me as an apostle: God having wrought nothing upon their souls by my ministry, yet you, whose faith is my work, though in the Lord, as the principal efficient Cause, yet by me as God’s instrument, cannot deny me to be so: if my having seen Jesus Christ, and being immediately sent out by him, be not enough to prove me so to you, yet the effects of my ministry upon you puts it past your denial.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 1-27. The rights and the self denial of an apostle.

Vers. 1-14. An apostle"s right to maintenance.

Am I not an apostle I am I not free? The order of the best manuscripts is, Am I not free? am I not an apostle? St. Paul designed in this chapter to show that he was not only giving a precept, but setting an example, He told the "strong" Corinthians, who had "knowledge," that they should be ready to abnegate their rights for the good of others, he now wishes to show them that, in a matter which affected his whole life, he had himself abnegated his own rights. Being free and an apostle, he could, if he had chosen, have claimed, as others had done, a right to be supported by the Churches to which he preached, he had thought it more for their good to waive this claim, and therefore he had done so at the cost (as appears in many other passages: 1Co_4:12; Act_20:34; 1Th_2:9) of bitter hardship to himself. But St. Paul practically "goes off" at the word "apostle." It was so essential for him to vindicate, against the subterranean malignity of hostile partisans, his dignity as an apostle, that in asserting that authority he almost loses sight for the time of the main object for which he had alluded to the fact. Hence much that he says is of the nature of a digression though an important one until he resumes the main thread of his subject at 1Co_11:15. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Doubtless he mainly refers to the vision on the road to Damascus (Act_9:3, Act_9:17; 1Co_15:8) though he received other visions and revelations also (Act_18:9 Act_22:14, Act_22:18; 2Co_12:1, etc.) he had probably not seen Christ during his life on earth (see my "Life of St. Paul," 1:73-75). The words are added to remind them that those who boasted of personal knowledge and relation with Jesus perhaps the Christ party had no exclusive prerogative. Are not ye my work in the Lord? I am not only an apostle, but emphatically your apostle (Act_18:1-11; 1Co_4:15)

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 1-21.

The leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister.

I not an apostle? am I not free?" etc. Taking these verses as a whole, they illustrate some of the leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister, and I offer the following remarks:

I The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE INDEPENDENT OF CEREMONIAL RESTRICTIONS. Paul was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, ministers of Christ that ever existed. He was an apostle, and had "seen Christ a qualification that distinguished him as a minister from all, but eleven others, that ever lived. Besides this, his natural and acquired endowments placed him in the very first rank of reasoners, scholars, and orators. He was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, etc. But see how this great minister regarded the mere conventionalities of religious society. "Am I not an apostle? am I not free?" He refers in all probability to the preceding chapter, which treats of the eating of meat offered to idols, and concerning which he says, "if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." As if he had said, "I am free to eat that meat, and free to reject it; I am not bound by any conventional custom or ceremonial law, for I am "an apostle. Now, it may be laid down as a universal truth that, the greater a gospel minister, the more independent of ceremonies. Indeed, the greater the man, always the more independent he is of forms, fashions, customs. Hezekiah called that which his countrymen worshipped "Nehushtan a piece of brass. Cromwell called that glittering insignia of authority on the table of the House of Commons, and at which most of the members, perhaps, trembled with awe, a "bauble." Thomas Carlyle called all the pageantry of office and the glitter of wealth "shams." Burns called the swaggering lordling a "coof." How much more would a man like Paul who possessed that spirit of Christ which gave him an insight into the heart of things look down, not merely with indifference, but with contempt, upon all that the world considered great and grand! The more Christly inspiration a man has, the more he will discern degradation on thrones and pauperism in mansions. A famous French preacher began his funeral address over the coffin of his sovereign with these words, "There is nothing great but God." To the man whose soul is charged with the great ideas of God, all the distinctions amongst men are only as the distinctions existing among the various bubbles on the flowing stream. Some are a little larger than others, some are tinged by the sunbeam, and some are pallid in the shade; but all have the same common nature, and all, breaking into the abyss, are lost forever. "Am I not free?" says Paul. A grand thing this, to be free from all the conventionalities of society and the ceremonies of religion. What cared Elijah for the kings of Syria, or Israel, or Judah? Nothing. Agrippa trembled before the moral majesty of Paul, even in chains. Oh for such ministers as Paul in this age of hypocrisies and forms!

II The greater the minister of Christ, the HIGHER THE SERVICE HE RENDERS TO SOCIETY. What high service did this great minister St. Paul render to the members of the Corinthian Church! "Are not ye my work in the Lord?... The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." Ye are, as far as ye are Christians, "my work." I converted you; I turned you away from idols to the one true and living God, from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of Christ. No work on earth equal to this. "He that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways," etc. This work which I effected in you "in the Lord," or by the Lord, is a demonstration of my apostleship. What work again, I ask, approaches this in grandeur and importance? It is the work of creating men "anew in Christ Jesus;" it is the work of establishing that moral moral empire in the world, which is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." The man who succeeds in accomplishing this work thereby demonstrates the divinity of his ministry. Hence Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this." Those that question or deny my apostleship I refer to the spiritual work I have accomplished; "this is my answer," my defence. Truly it might be said of Paul, "No man can do the works that thou doest, except God be with him." The only way by which we can prove ourselves true ministers is, not by words, but by spiritual works.

III The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE INDEPENDENT HE IS OF THE ANIMAL ENJOYMENTS OF LIFE. "Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Paul claims the privilege to eat and drink as he pleased, and to marry or not according to his pleasure, to be a celibate or a benedict. Perhaps some of the members of the Corinthian Church questioned Paul"s apostleship because he was not married. Those who belonged to Peter"s party who was a married man would be likely to say, "Paul cannot be an apostle, for Cephas, who is an apostle, has his wife, whom he takes about with him in the prosecution of his mission." And then the "brethren of the Lord," too, they have their wives. Paul"s reply to this is virtually, "I have the power and the right to all connubial privileges and comforts, the right to feast at banquets, and to form domestic relations; but I forego them, I am independent of them, I have higher tastes and sublimer sources of enjoyment. "For me to live is Christ." He is the all and in all of my soul." The more brain and Christly inspiration a man has, the less carnal, and the less carnal the more independent of material enjoyments.

IV The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE CLAIM HE HAS TO THE TEMPORAL SUPPORT OF THOSE WHOM HE SPIRITUALLY SERVES. The apostle goes on from the sixth to the fourteenth verse to say that he and Barnabas would be right if they were to forbear working for their livelihood, and claim their temporal support from those to whom they spiritually ministered. He goes on to indicate several reasons why he had a claim to their temporal support.

1. The general usage of mankind. "Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?" etc. He draws three illustrations from human life to show the equity of the principle from the soldier, the agriculturist, and the shepherd.

2. The principle of the Jewish Law. "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also?" etc. On a space of hard ground called a threshing floor the oxen in Jewish times were driven to and fro over the corn thrown there, thus separating the husk from the grain. "God," says Matthew Henry, "had therein ordered that the ox should not be muzzled while he was treading out the corn, nor hindered from eating while he was preparing the corn, for man"s use, and treading it out of the ear. But this law was not chiefly given out of God"s regard to oxen or concern for them, but to teach mankind that all due encouragement should be given to those who are employed by us or labouring for our good, that the labourers should taste of the fruit of their labours." "Doth God take care for oxen?" Yes. He enjoined that the mouth of the working ox should not be muzzled, but should have food to eat. Is not man greater than the ox? And shall he work and be deprived of temporal supplies?

3. The principles of common equity. "If we have sown into you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" They had given to them far higher things, infinitely more important than the temporal support which they required. He who gives to his race Divine ideas gives that Which alone can secure the progress of humanity, both in temporal and spiritual good. True ideas destroy bad institutions and create good ones.

4. Other apostles and their wives were thus supported. "Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?"... If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?" This language implies that all the others who worked amongst them obtained their temporal support. Why should not we? Have we done less? Is our authority inferior?

5. The support of the Jewish priesthood. "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and their which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?" "The first part of the passage refers to the general principle that the priests who were engaged in the temple services were supported from the various offerings which were brought there; and the second clause more definitely alludes to the particular fact that, when a sacrifice was offered on the altar, the sacrificing priests as well as the altar had a share of the animal.

6. The ordiniation of Christ. "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel". (see Mat_10:10) "Should live of the gospel," not grow rich on the gospel, but have from it that which is needful for subsistence. Looking at all that Paul says on that question here, and at the immense service that a true minister renders to society, the conviction cannot be avoided that no man has a stronger claim to a temporal recompense for his labour than a true gospel minister. Albeit no claims are so universally ignored. What Churches in these modern times tender to their ministers as an acknowledgment of their service is regarded as a charity rather than a claim. Charity, indeed! Call the money you pay to your butcher, baker, lawyer, doctor, charity; but in the name of all that is just, do not call that charity which you tender to the man who consecrates his entire being and time to impart to you the elements of eternal life.

V The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE READY TO SURRENDER HIS CLAIMS FOR THE SAKE OF USEFULNESS. Great as were the claims of Paul, he magnanimously surrenders them all in order to become more useful. He would not feast at banquets, enjoy conjugal life, or take payment for his services, lest his usefulness should be in the least impaired. "But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me; for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void." I would sooner die than be dependent on you for a livelihood. Grand man! He stood before his congregations and said, "I have coveted no man"s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB. Vers. 1-14.

How St. Paul regarded his apostleship and its rights.

To induce the Corinthians to deny themselves the exercise of a liberty they had in things indifferent, St. Paul bad made the argument in the eighth chapter. Liberty was amenable to conscience, knowledge secondary to love, and love was the constructing or building up power of the new spiritual edifice. Not one of these could be spared, for they were all constituents of manhood in Christ; but they must be adjusted to one another under the supremacy of love. If one had a true reverence for his own conscience, he would reverence conscience in others. The conscience of another might be weak, and he might pity the weakness, and yet this pity, if genuine, would not allow scorn or contempt. The argument was a lesson in patience and forbearance, a lesson in self abnegation, and a lesson, furthermore, in responsibility for our example; So far as the immediate issue is concerned (meats offered to idols and participating in feasts held in heathen temples), the logic is direct and conclusive. At no moment does the apostle confine himself to individual rights on the part of such as had enlightened views as to the nothingness of idols. He looks also at community rights and discusses a special duty on the ground of general interests. Here, as in the former chapters, the community man, the community Christian, is before him; and he shows the great characteristic of a teacher in the fact that his business is to mould a body of men into unity. Of what value are minds of large endowments, in their social relations, if they stand for a narrow and cramped individualism? If a man has a finer eye than others, it is that he may see further into the needs of the race. If he has more ardent sympathies, it is for their wider outgoing. Genius is nature"s protest, not against ordinary talents, but against the littleness and selfish absorption of individuality. And so far, genius is an instinctive yearning in the direction, of a world wide appreciation and love, and is one of those innumerable parables m which Christianity lies imbedded till the human mind can be prepared to receive it. Now, St. Paul was the foremost representative, in a certain sense, of this community idea, and, unquestionably, Corinth put its strength and compass to a very severe test. At his time of life, at that era in his ministry, and from just such a mixed people, this grand sentiment of universality was destined by Providence so we may conjecture to undergo a thorough discipline. Each truth has its own peculiar test. Some truths need a hotter furnace than others to separate the human dross and bring out the refined gold. If, then, St. Paul was experiencing a special mental and spiritual training in respect to this transcendent doctrine, we have an insight into his mode of argument, and even into the style of his illustrations and enforcement. Identified with his doctrine, he himself merging, as it were, his personality in its nature and operations, his own fortunes bound up inseparably with its fortunes, how could he avoid citing his own example to confirm the views he so fervently advocated? One paragraph, at least, must be given to his individual portraiture as a community man, a race man, intent with his whole heart on bringing a world to the Lord Jesus. And he had sprung to this high level of his own experience and history when he said in the thirteenth verse of the previous chapter, "I will eat no flesh," etc. On that ground, remote as it was from that occupied by some of his Corinthian friends, he was perfectly at home; he knew his strength in God; he saw precisely what to say of grace and its workings in his soul, and how to say it with unanswerable force straightforward, vivid, incisive. The movement of thought, even for him, is uncommonly rapid. Sentences are short; the words simple, intense, and closely linked. Interrogation abounds. He is an apostle; a tree apostle; an apostle who saw not Christ in his humiliation, and never knew him after the flesh, but has seen him in his glorification, and dates his conversion from the spectacle of his Divine exaltation; and, last of all, an apostle whose success among the Corinthians ("my work in the Lord;" "the seal of mine apostleship") has vindicated and verified his claims as Christ"s chosen servant. Self assertion becomes under some circumstances a very important duty, and, if self be surrendered to God, there is no way more effective to exemplify humility. One who can ascend to a height so lofty, and stand among the sublimities of the universe apart from self and even dead to self, is a far greater man in the moral scale than one who, on the low plain of this world, merely foregoes his selfishness and acts disinterestedly to comply with an earthly contingency. Full of the infinite and eternal, St. Paul"s thoughts are God"s thoughts finding tone and accent in his utterance. There is no faltering, no nice qualifyings, no hesitating apprehension lest self should insinuate its pretensions. But the view given of himself is large, massive, and, for its purpose, strikingly complete. Men cannot speak of themselves in such a strain unless an utter self forgetfulness be precedent. A thinker"s illustrations show what hold a thought has on him. In this instance St. Paul"s illustrations are significant as well as diversified. Soldiers in the field, husbandmen in the vineyard, shepherds with their flocks, supply his imagination with analogies to establish the right claimed by himself "to eat and to drink," "to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles," and "to forbear working." On all grounds, natural and civil and religious, he maintains the right, and then advances to Old Testament authority. "Doth God take care for oxen?" Yea, not only for their sakes as animals, but for man"s benefit, the providence over the lower creation being tributary to the providence that looks to man"s welfare as the final earthly cause of all arrangements in the kingdom of nature. Yea, verily, we are in the song of the bird and the muscle of the horse and the fidelity of all domesticated creatures, as surely as in the grass and the cereals and the luscious fruits of the ground. Most true it is that

More servants wait on man Than he"ll take notice of; in every path He treads down that which doth befriend him When sickness makes him pale and wan. Oh, mighty love! Man is one world, and hath Another to attend him.

The prefigurations and the wondrous homologies are all from below, so that whatever may be found by industry, by science and art, in the amplitude and beneficence of material things and of animal existence, are but so many prophecies of man"s natural position of headship. Yet what incompleteness were in all this, and what a mockery of man"s exaltation, if it were all! a vast pyramid enclosing a mummy a magnificent temple, like the heathen temples, in which you walk through portico and corridor and hall to confront at last a worthless image in stone. To perfect this idea of man shadowed forth beneath him and ever advancing towards him, there must be a counterpart. The counterpart is the archetype above. It descends to man in Christ Son of man because Son of God. "For our sakes, no doubt, this is written;" and all the writings, below and above, on the earth"s strata, in the Holy Scriptures, are alike in this: "for our sakes. It is all a unity or it is all nothing. And this power of manhood St. Paul declares to belong to him, and vested to the full in his apostleship. If, now, St. Paul had exhorted the Corinthians so urgently to obey the dictates of conscience in a matter clearly harmless, and thus avoid a wrong to the weaker brethren and a wrong to their own souls; and if he had avowed his own inflexible resolution to "eat no flesh" (the meat of which he bad been speaking) "forever;" it was a fit occasion to testify to his own self denial for the sake of the gospel. The solace of domestic life, the special tenderness of close sympathy, the offices of watchful affection, ministerial support, "carnal things" that might have lightened the burden of poverty and made his toil much easier, these were cheerfully resigned. Others allowed themselves these aids and comforts; he refused them, one and all. From the common order of apostolic life he would stand aside in his own isolated lot, and my gospel should have in his own career the most forcible demonstration of his glorious individuality. And then, recollecting the law of the temple service which provided for the support of the priests, he would strengthen the analogical argument already presented in favour of his rights. At every touch the individual portrait of the community and race man glows more vividly on the canvas. The contrast had cost him much. Poverty, loneliness, sorrow, had been intensified, but there it was a contrast with the soldier, the husbandman, the shepherd, the priest, the apostles self assumed and a perpetual obligation we should hinder the gospel of Christ. L.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Vers. 1, 2.

Signs of apostleship.

Why should Paul, departing from his usual custom, speak here of himself and of his claims? Undoubtedly because in this Christian society at Corinth there were those, prompted by Judaizing teachers, who called in question his apostleship, his equality with those who had been the companions of Jesus in his ministry, and had received their commission before his ascension. Wishing to incite the Corinthians to self denial, Paul put himself forward as an example of this virtue. But to make this example effective, it was necessary that he should assert and vindicate his position and rights. If he had no special commission from Christ, there was no virtue in renouncing privileges which were never his. That an apostle should live as he did a life of celibacy and manual labour for the Church"s good, was very significant. Such was Paul"s position; he sets out, therefore, by establishing his apostolic claims and position.

I THE VISION OF THE LORD CHRIST. Not that every one who saw Jesus became an apostle; but that none became an apostle who had not seen him, who had not received the commission from his lips. In all likelihood, some of Paul"s opponents at Corinth had contrasted the past history of the apostle of the Gentiles with that of the twelve, to his disadvantage. The others, it was well known, had seen the Lord; but was it certain that Paul had been so favoured? Now, Paul would not submit to an imputation which must needs weaken the authority of all he might say or do. He had seen the Lord on the way to Damascus, had heard his voice, and had by him been then entrusted with a special commission to the Gentiles. It was not simply that Paul had seen Jesus; he had been endowed with his Spirit and with his authority. He was not preaching the gospel at the instigation of his own inclinations, but in obedience to a command laid upon him by the highest authority.

II SUCCESS IN APOSTOLIC LABOUR. The craftsman proves his ability by the work he does; the sailor by his navigation of the vessel; the soldier by his bravery and skill in war. So the apostle acknowledges the justice of the practical test, and subjects himself thereto accordingly. There may be a shade of difference in the meaning of the words employed.

1. Paul appealed to his work. Labour is misspent when no results ensue. But this man"s labour had not been in vain in the Lord. Jews and Gentiles had been brought to the faith of Christ and to the hope of life eternal.

2. The workmanship of the apostle was also his seal, i.e. it bore the mark, impress, and witness of his own character and ability and office. A competent judge, looking to the Churches Paul had founded, would admit them to be evidence of his apostleship.

3. It is observable that the signs were manifest in the very community in which his authority was questioned. There is irony and force in the appeal made to the Corinthians, whether they themselves were not, in their own Christian position, proof of Paul"s apostleship. Whoever raised a question, whoever offered opposition, the Christians of Corinth should certainly have honoured the founder of their Church and the bearer of the gospel to their souls. T.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL Vers. 1-15.

The support of the ministry.

Paul recognizes a ministry set apart.

I THE RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO CLAIM ADEQUATE SUPPORT FROM THEIR PEOPLE. Enforced by:

1. Analogy.

(1) The soldier who gives his services to his country receives maintenance.

(2) The planter of a vineyard cats of its fruit.

(3) The shepherd finds the means of his support in the flock which he tends. The Christian minister is a soldier, fighting the tattles of the Lord and of his Church; a labourer in the vineyard of Christ, planting, watering, pruning, training; a shepherd, watching over the sheep and lambs of his flock, seeking the wandering, correcting the rebellious, leading, feeding, etc.

2. The Mosaic Law.

(1) The ox treading the corn was unmuzzled, that he might feed as well as toil. (ver. 9; Deu_25:4) The apostle claims that this was commanded more with an eye to men than to oxen (ver. 10).

(2) The priests and Levites lived on the things of the temple. Here the parallel becomes more striking. The ministers under the old dispensation were supported out of the offerings of the people: why should not the ministers of the new be also? Moreover, this obtained amongst men generally. Even the heathen perceived its fitness.

1. Common sense. It is reasonable that those who give up their time, energies, and gifts to the service of the Church should be supported by it. This is seen more strikingly when we remember that what is received by the Church is of infinitely more value than what is given: "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" The Church is not a loser, but a great gainer. What blessings God has bestowed in the past through the channel of a faithful ministry? What may he not in the future, to ourselves, our friends, our children?

2. The express ordination of Christ. As though the preceding strong arguments were not strong enough, this the strongest and altogether unanswerable one is added. The Head of the Church commands. He sees what is fitting and best. We run counter to his mind if we do not yield prompt and willing obedience. Whatever we may think, this is what he thinks (Mat_10:10; Luk_10:8) Ministerial support:

(1) Should be rendered cheerfully. Grudging or tardy gift in such a matter is semi-disobedience to Christ, and not a little dishonouring to the givers.

(2) Should not be regarded as an equivalent for what is received. A minister is not paid for what he does. He is not in receipt of a salary. This is a degrading view of the whole matter. A minister is supported, whilst he lays himself out for the spiritual profit of those amongst whom his lot is cast.

(3) Should be sufficient. A due estimate of the advantages derived from a faithful ministry will prompt to a generous support, so that, amid many spiritual cares, temporal anxieties may not unduly press. A Church failing to adequately support its ministers, whilst possessing the ability to do so, inflicts much injury upon its ministers, but much more upon itself. Matthew Henry says," A scandalous maintenance makes a scandalous ministry.

II THE RIGHT MAY PROFITABLY BE WAIVED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. To remove prejudice.

2. To prove disinterestedness, showing that we are not actuated by love of lucre.

3. To gain more independence, which may be desirable under certain conditions of Church life.

4. To make a strong position for one"s self when unjust charges are apprehended. The Apostle Paul would not give the least advantage to his enemies.

5. For any ether reasons which promise profit to the interests of Christ"s kingdom. If thereby we can "gain the more" (ver. 19). There is nothing derogatory in a minister supporting himself. It is a pity that there should be so much absurd prejudice against it. A marvel of incongruity that the title of "Rev." should be bestowed upon the minister who is supported by his people, and denied to the minister who follows the lead of the apostolic tent maker! that the one should be welcomed to certain associations and circles, and the other kept at arm"s length! Not that the title of "Rev." is appropriate for any; yet if ever a man deserved such a designation, I suppose it was the very apostle, who, according to modern notions, disqualified himself for it. As to privileged societies, men of good sense need scarcely worry themselves about being excluded from those which would have blackballed the apostle of the Gentiles. H.

HOMILIES BY H. BREMNER Vers. 1-3.

The marks of apostleship.

This chapter grows out of the noble utterance of self denial with which the previous one closes. The apostle illustrates and enforces the duty of curtailing our liberty in things indifferent for the sake of weaker brethren, by a reference to his own example in foregoing the right of maintenance by the Church. Was he not free? Had he not all the rights belonging to Christians, unfettered by obligations to men? Nay, more, was he not an apostle? At Corinth, as elsewhere, there were some who questioned the full apostolic authority of Paul, on the ground that he was not one of the twelve; and his self denial seems to have been turned into an argument against him. It was insinuated that he refrained from asking the support of his converts, as the other apostles were in the habit of doing, because he was conscious of his inferiority. It is apparently for this reason that he here presents the marks of his apostleship.

I HE HAD SEEN JESUS THE LORD. There is no evidence that he had seen Jesus in the days of his flesh, but the reference is mainly to the appearance near Damascus. (Act_9:4-6) On that occasion the Lord met him and gave him his commission as an apostle; and this was regarded as an essential mark of apostleship in the highest sense, as we see from the election of Matthias. (Act_1:22; comp. 1Co_15:8) In this respect the apostles can have no successors. The office was a special and temporary one, needful for the planting and organizing of the Church, and was intended to expire with the men who held it. Having set the house in order, they were to deliver the keys to the ordinary servants who were left in charge. Still, every one whom Christ sends forth to do his work must first have had the sight of him that faith gives. Only when we have beheld him in his glory, invested with "all authority in heaven and on earth," and heard from his lips the cult to go forth, shall we feel ourselves clothed with power as his ambassadors. (comp. Isa 6; Mat_28:18, Mat_28:19)

II THE CORINTHIAN CHRISTIANS WERE THE SEAL OF HIS APOSTLESHIP. Whatever reason others might have for questioning his standing, they at least had none; for as the instrument of their conversion, he could point to them as "his work in the Lord." The power which accompanied his preaching, and which had wrought so mighty a change in them, was a proof that he had not run unsent. This of itself did not prove apostleship in the high sense in which Paul claimed it, but it proved that the Lord was with him. This kind of evidence requires to be adduced with caution, inasmuch as it is difficult for us to estimate the real success of a ministry; but where there are unmistakable proofs of the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints, we are warranted in viewing these as the seals of our mission. In seeking these high ends, we are doing truly apostolic work. Happy the minister who can say to his congregation, "Ye are my work in the Lord"! B.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Vers. 1, 2.

The rights of apostleship.

One of St. Paul"s chief difficulties arose from the efforts of his enemies to disprove his claims to apostleship. There does not seem to have been in the early Church a common understanding as to what constituted an apostle, and it was readily observed that the grounds of St. Paul"s claim differed from the grounds on which the older apostles claimed. This, indeed, was but a surface appearance of difference, and did not reach the heart of the matter; but it sufficed to give the enemies of St. Paul an opportunity of questioning his authority, and even of asserting that, in the extravagance of his self esteem, he had assumed a position and office which in no sense belonged to him. It will be seen from his letters that he was very jealous of his position as an apostle, and persisted in claiming the rights which belonged to the office. We may, therefore, recall to mind the general grounds on which he believed himself to be an apostle, and the more special signs of his apostleship which ought to have commended his claim to the Corinthians. St. Peter, on the occasion of filling the betrayer"s place, had declared a condition of apostleship for which he gives no kind of authority. According to his idea, (Act_1:21, Act_1:22) "Of the men therefore which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection." Probably St. Peter was led to this idea by our Lord"s appointment of the apostles as his witnesses, and he conceived that an apostle must have a complete knowledge to be a true witness. But the essential condition of apostleship is rather to be found in the direct pershnal call to the office by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Each one of the first twelve our Lord personally called. St. Paul he directly and personally called. No man can claim the office. The number can never be increased, unless Christ should be pleased to make himself manifest again, and call men to the office. St. Paul saw the Son of man, and heard his voice, and received his direct call, when smitten by the light near Damascus. Where there had been this direct personal call of Christ, there would surely be a seal of the call in a Divine endowment of miraculous power. This the first twelve apostles had, and this it is certain St. Paul also had. This, then, was the general ground of his claim; but he further urges upon the Corinthians that they had special reasons for accepting him as an apostle. The power of Christ which had come to them through him carried its own testimony. "The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." God had witnessed to him by crowning his labours with success; and the Corinthians had felt his apostolic power. Now St. Paul had to vindicate his personal dignity and liberty and right as an apostle. He had persisted in working for his own living at the trade of the tent maker, in which he had been brought up, and his malicious enemies argued that he did so because he felt that he could not press his claim to maintenance, as did the other apostles. "The followers of St. Peter, with malicious ingenious logic, argued from this practice of St. Paul that his dignity and authority were thereby proved to be somewhat inferior to that of St. Peter and the Lord"s brethren, who were supported by the Christian Church." In this chapter St. Paul declares his apostolic liberty and rights, especially in three matters.

I HIS SIGHT OF ENTERING INTO SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. St. Peter had a wife. Other apostles were married men. And St. Paul might have been had he chosen to be. If he voluntarily refrained from entering into this social relation, because of the limitations which its responsibilities would entail on him, and because of the itinerant character of his labours, no one need assume that he abandoned his rights or failed to recognize them. Had he so minded, he could have made both wife and family chargeable to the Churches, and the burden those who loved him would gladly have borne. Voluntary abstention from the pressing of a man"s rights ought never to be construed as the surrender of those rights. So St. Paul lays down the true and only principle upon which the celibacy of the clergy can be recognized. Every clergyman has the right to "lead about a sister, a wife," but any clergyman may refuse to exercise his right, and may voluntarily set his own liberty in bonds, if he thinks that he may thus gain a higher power in the service of his Divine Lord. The principle is equally applicable in the life of the ordinary Christian. Abridgments of liberty are oftentimes necessary, and yet more often advisable, but they never involve abandonments of rights. Constantly the Christian man says, "I may, but I will not I will not for Christ"s sake.

II HIS RIGHT OF WORKING FOR INDEPENDENT MAINTENANCE. This was certainly a peculiarity in St. Paul, and no doubt other teachers felt it to be a kind of reproach upon them. But St. Paul never argues that it was a necessary duty for others. Any other man might feel it a duty, just as he did; but he had no intention of making his conduct in this respect even an example. He was placed in peculiar circumstances; he was of a singularly sensitive temperament; he laboured among all classes, and was anxious to keep away everything that might be made a reproach of the gospel; he was determined to make his motives quite clear, and so he would receive from the Churches no maintenance, only, in times of necessity, some kindly and helpful gifts. Now, we need not even say that St. Paul was right in this. He had an unquestioned ministerial claim to support in carnal things. We can only say he had a right also to exercise his liberty, and work for his own living, if he chose so to do. Those who work for their living may serve Christ in the preaching of his gospel; and those who preach his gospel may work for their living, if they prefer so to do.

III HIS RIGHT OF CLAIMING THE DUE REWARDS OF HIS WORK. (Ver. 7.) This is urged by three figures: the support of the soldier in war; the partaking of the fruitage of his vineyard by the vine dresser; and the sharing of the milk, given by the cattle, by him who has them in charge. The true rewards of Christian service for others are

(1) their loving confidence and esteem;

(2) the expressions of that love in their holy lives and labours; and

(3) the more personal expressions of their love in gifts and care and kindly concern for the temporal well being of their teachers. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Am I not free? am I not an apostle? - That is, Have not I the liberty of a common Christian? yea, that of an apostle? He vindicates his apostleship, chap. ix, 1-iii, his apostolical liberty, chap. ix, 4-19. Have I not seen Jesus Christ? - Without this he could not have been one of those first grand witnesses. Are not ye my work in the Lord - A full evidence that God hath sent me? And yet some, it seems, objected to his being an apostle, because he had not asserted his privilege in demanding and receiving such maintenance from the churches as was due to that office.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

1Co 9:16

It is a ministry of necessity that Christ calls for, that the world needs, that a revived Church supplies today. We need not ministers that may or that will, but ministers that must preach the gospel. We need members not that may or that will, but that must live the gospel.

I. The work. They preach the gospel. (1) Without opening his lips to preach, or putting his hand to missionary work, every one who bears Christ’s name either helps or hinders the gospel by his spirit and his life. Thousands of opportunities are thrown away through thoughtlessness and a self-pleasing, worldly habit of mind. (2) Another department of ministry is word and work directly contributed to the kingdom of Christ. The methods and opportunities are manifold and various as the characters and circumstances of Christians. "She hath done what she could," is the standard of measurement.

II. The motive. It is worthy of remark that the Apostle confesses frankly that he was kept at his work as a slave is by the sound of the whip behind him. Look at some of the particular forces that press a human soul to diligence in the work of the Lord. (1) The love of Christ constraining it; (2) the new appetite of the new creature; (3) the need of a sinning, suffering world. The life that is placed under the play of these three kindred powers will be an active life. These three may well stir the stiffest out of all his fastenings to the earth, and send him off, like flaming fire or stormy winds, on errands of mercy at God’s command and for man’s good.

W. Arnot, The Anchor of the Soul, p. 182.

References: 1Co 9:17.—F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 207. 1Co 9:22.—E. Jenkins, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxiii., p. 280. 1Co 9:24.—J. Edmunds, Sixty Sermons, p. 81; F. W. Farrar, In the Days of thy Youth, p. 275; H. E. Manning, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. i., p. 145; T. Kelly, Pulpit Trees, p. 283.

1Co 9:24-27

The Race and the Prize.

I. The prize, in the contest that St. Paul speaks of, is a different kind of prize from that which these Corinthians were seeking after in their games. It was not a light thing, as men call lightness, which these racers sought after. The man who seeks to be wondered at because he is so rich, or because he is so learned, or even because he is so kind and charitable,—this man seeks just the same sort of reward that the runners and the wrestlers and the leapers and the throwers among the Corinthians coveted. St. Paul was a man who had as hard a fight to fight in this world as you have. Dreams would not have satisfied him any more than they would you; he wanted realities, he complained of the things men in general are seeking after, not because they are too substantial, but because they are not substantial enough, because there is no food in them to content the appetites of hungry men. He desired to know God, and desiring this he did not desire a vain thing; he desired the most real of all things—he desired that which the spirit of you and of me and of every man on this earth is desiring, and which we must have, or perish discontented and miserable.

II. I have shown you how this race differed from the race to which St. Paul compared it. Now I will show you wherein they are both alike. (1) They are alike in this, that the prize is set before all. (2) All run, but some only receive the prize. (3) The races resemble each other in the conduct of those who do win the race and obtain the prize. They keep under their bodies and bring them into subjection. St. Paul does not make it any merit to restrain the body from its indulgences and lusts: it is merely a point of wisdom which no one who is really in earnest, really means to seek God and His glory, can neglect. We do neglect it, alas! but we do it at our peril; we neglect it, because we neglect, at the same time, the thought of the glorious prize which God is offering us, that prize of being found in Christ, that prize of awaking up in His likeness, and of being satisfied with it.

F. D. Maurice, Christmas Day and Other Sermons, p. 89.

1Co 9:25

I. We may take it as an undoubted fact that Christianity does make a vast difference as regards self-denial, by strengthening and multiplying the motives which induce us to submit to it, and by infusing into each man a higher nature offering a Divine help which tends to make self-denial easy and delightful. But does Christianity, which so much increases our power to endure self-denial, make any alteration in our conception of the nature of self-denial? Does it turn it from a means into an end, or condemn pleasure as being in itself evil?

II. Before answering this I will revert to another consideration which distinguishes the self-denial of the believer from that of the unbeliever. While the agnostic recognises a comparatively superficial duty to man alone, the Christian recognises besides a paramount and exhaustless duty to God. The secret of the Christian’s strength is faith, the sight of Him who is invisible. But to maintain this faith with vigour much self-denial is required. With the Christian, as with other men, what is out of sight is in danger of being out of mind, and strong resolution and steady perseverance are needed to overcome this tendency. And besides the self-denial which is thus deliberately chosen, there is the self-denial which is impulsive. It was no thought either of duty or expediency which prompted David’s refusal to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem when his soldiers brought it to him at the hazard of their lives. So it was neither duty nor expediency which caused St. Paul to rejoice that he was allowed to share in the sufferings of Christians; it was that delight to which none of us can be entirely strangers, the delight of sacrificing something for a friend, and so giving a deeper utterance to our affection, and, as it were, realising it to ourselves. I return now to the question I asked before. Must not a change like this, in the scope of self-denial, necessitate a change also in our conception of self-denial? The question is, which is the truer form of Christianity, ascetic Christianity in either of its developments, puritanic or monastic, or what we may call Shakespearian Christianity? In the Bible we never find the ascetic disposition reckoned among the fruits of the Spirit, nor do ascetic practices form a prominent portion of the Christian’s armour. The virtues and duties on which our Lord and His apostles lay stress are the virtues and duties of everyday life. The great mischief of wrong asceticism is that it confounds men’s ideas of right and wrong, and shuts them up in a little ecclesiastical world of their own, where vice and virtue are thrust into the background by a crowd of imaginary sins and imaginary virtues. Of such a system it may be said that Christianity has had few more dangerous enemies, whether we regard it in its effect on those who have accepted it or on those who have been repelled by it.

J. B. Mayor, Oxford and Cambridge Journal, Feb. 26th, 1880.

1Co 9:25

Christian Temperance.

I. To be temperate, in the primary sense of the word, is to be under command, self-governed, to feel the reins of our desires, and to be able to check them. It is obvious that this of itself implies a certain amount of prudence, to know when, at what point, to exercise this control. There is such a thing as negative as well as positive intemperance. God made His world for our use; He gave us our faculties to be employed. If we use not the one and employ not the other, then, though we do not usually call such an insensibility by the name of intemperance, it certainly is a breach of temperance, the very essence of which is to use God’s bounties in moderation, to employ our faculties and desires, but so as to retain the guidance and check over them. And such being the pure moral definition of temperance, let us proceed to base it on Christian grounds, to ask why and how the disciple of Christ must be temperate.

II. Our text will give us ample reason why. The disciple of Christ is a combatant, contending in a conflict in which he has need of all the exercise of all his powers. He has ever, in the midst of a visible world, to be ruled and guided by his sense of a world invisible. For this purpose he needs to be vigilant and active. He cannot afford to have his faculties dulled by excess, or his energies relaxed by sloth. He strives for the mastery, and therefore he must be temperate in all things.

III. A Christian man must be temperate in his religion. It is not a passion, carrying him out of his place in life and its appointed duties; nor a fancy, leading him to all kinds of wild notions, requiring constant novelty to feed it and keep it from wearying him; nor, again, is it a charm, to be sedulously gone through as a balm to his conscience. It is a matter demanding the best use of his best faculties. Temperance must also be shown in the intellectual life, in opinions and in language. The end of all is our sanctification by God’s Spirit to God’s glory; the perfection, not of stoical morality, but of Christian holiness.

H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. v., p. 199.

References: 1Co 9:26.—E. M. Goulburn, Thoughts on Personal Religion, p. 191. 1Co 9:27.—C. S. Robinson, Sermons on Neglected Texts, p. 108. 1Co 10:1.—G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 141. 1Co 10:1-5.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 481; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 89. 1Co 10:1-6.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 22; vol. viii., p. 88. 1Co 10:3, 1Co 10:4.—J. Edmunds, Fifteen Sermons, p. 164. 1Co 10:4.—C. Kingsley, Town and Country Sermons, p. 282; W. C. E. Newbolt, Counsels of Faith and Practice, p. 176; C. J. Elliott, Church of England Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 53; Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. iii., p. 87. 1Co 10:6.—Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Church of England Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 109. 1Co 10:7.—T. Wilkinson, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 1; R. L. Browne, Sussex Sermons, p. 95.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The first instance which the apostle gives of his freedom and liberty was this, That when he preached the gospel amongst them at Corinth, he had a liberty either to live on the gospel, and take maintenance of them for preaching, or to live upon his labour, following his trade of tent-making, according as he saw it best for the furtherance of the gospel.

Am I not free? As if he had said, "Have not I as good a claim to freedom and Christian liberty as any man?

For, Am I not an apostle? or an extraordinary messenger of Jesus Christ? And though I never saw the face of Christ upon earth, yet have I not seen him and heard him speaking to me from heaven? And is not the conversion of you, the Corinthians, to the Christian faith by my ministry, a fruit and seal of my ministry, a fruit and seal of my apostleship? Now if I be all this, certainly I have as great a right and claim to the use of Christian liberty as any of you can pretend to have; yet will I only make use of it for the benefit of others, and for the furtherance of the gospel."

Learn we from the apostle’s example in abstaining form that liberty and power which God had given him for receiving maintenance from them to whom he preached the gospel, how much it is the duty and concern of all Christians, to the end of the world, to abstain from the exercise of that liberty and rightful power granted to them by Christ, for avoiding the scandal of the weak, and promoting men’s spiritual welfare.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1-10. Though he had never seen Jesus during His earthly ministry, having completed his education at Jerusalem and returned to Cilicia before our Lord began His public ministry, and coming into Judea soon after Pentecost, yet he had seen Him on the Damascus road and in the temple at Jerusalem. Hence here he boldly claims to have seen Him. The literal meaning of apostle is “one sent forth”; i. e., the pioneer into any field. Hence as Paul well says, he was an apostle to them if not to others, as he was the pioneer who came first of all and preached eighteen months in the Providence of God, becoming their spiritual father. He proceeds to vindicate his rights, though he had not availed himself of them all, e. g., to lead about with him a sister (in the Lord, not a sinner) or a wife, like Peter, who had been there and preached to them, all recognizing him as an apostle, because of the original twelve, and “the brothers of the Lord,” i. e., James, the Jerusalem pastor, and the author of the epistle, and Jude his brother. Though Paul lived and died in celibacy, he here boldly claims his right to holy wedlock. He now proceeds to boldly advocate his right to temporal support, though he did not avail himself of it, but made tents at Corinth. Good reason for this; where he began there was no church to support him till God raised it up through his instrumentality. He shows plainly that God’s command “not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the wheat” means ministerial support. When I was in Palestine it was harvest time, and I everywhere saw the oxen treading out the wheat, barley and other cereal grains. Why do they continue thus since the steam engine has come to that country? It is a verification of the Scriptures.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

[False or factional teachers coming to Corinth expected to be supported by the church according to the usual custom, but were hampered by the example of Paul, who had taken nothing for his services. To justify themselves and to discredit Paul, some of them appear to have gone so far as to deny Paul's appointment as an apostle, and to use his failure to demand wages as an evidence of their assertion. They argued that he knew he was not an apostle, and so forbore through shame to ask an apostle's pay. To settle this controversy, the Corinthians asked some such question as this: "Explain why, being an apostle, you did not take the wages due you as such." Paul begins his answer with four questions which show both surprise and indignation.] Am I not free? [All free men were entitled to wages for work done. Only slaves worked without compensation. See 1Co_9:19 ] Am I not an apostle? [and so more entitled to wages than an ordinary, less approved Christian teacher.] Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? [Apostles were to be witnesses of Jesus' resurrection ( Act_1:22 ; Act_2:32 ; Act_10:4 ), and so it was necessary that they should have seen the risen Christ. But Paul had seen more; on the way to Damascus, not only the risen, but the glorified, Christ had appeared to him. This was Paul's first proof of apostleship.] Are not ye my work in the Lord? [The presence of a church in Corinth, having in it Christians converted by Paul and living in the Lord, was the second proof of his apostleship. Such work could not be done by impostors-- Mat_7:15-20 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1 Corinthians Chapter 9

The apostle was exposed to the accusations of false teachers, who asserted that he carried on his evangelisation and his labours from interested motives, and that he took the property of Christians, availing himself of their devotedness. He speaks therefore of his ministry. He declares openly that he is an apostle, an eye-witness of the glory of Christ, having seen the Lord. Moreover, if he was not an apostle to others, doubtless he was to the Corinthians, for he had been the means of their conversion. Now the will of the Lord was that they who preached the gospel should live of the gospel. He had a right to take with him a sister as his wife, even as Peter did, and the brethren of the Lord. Nevertheless he had not used this right. Obliged by the call of the Lord to preach the gospel, woe unto him if he failed to do it! His glory was to do it gratuitously, so as to take away all occasion from those who sought it. For, being free from all, he had made himself the servant of all, that he might win as many as he could. Observe that this was in his service; it was not accommodating himself to the world, in order to escape the offence of the cross. He put this plainly forward (chap. 2:2); but in preaching it, he adapted himself to the religious capacity and to the modes of thought belonging to the one and to the other, in order to gain access for the truth into their minds; and he did the same in his manner of conduct among them. It was the power of charity which denied itself in all things, in order to be the servant of all, and not the selfishness which indulged itself under the pretence of gaining others. He did so in every respect for the sake of the gospel, desiring, as he said, to be a partaker with it, for he personifies it as doing the work of God’s love in the world.

It was thus they should run; and, in order to run thus, one must deny oneself. In this way the apostle acted. He did not run with uncertain steps, as one who did not see the true end, or who did not pursue it seriously as a known thing. He knew well what he was pursuing, and he pursued it really, evidently, according to its nature. Every one could judge by his walk. He did not trifle as a man who beats the air-easy prowess. In seeking that which was holy and glorious, he knew the difficulties he resisted in the personal conflict with the evil that sought to obstruct his victory. As a vigorous wrestler, he kept under his body, which would have hindered him. There was reality in his pursuit of heaven: he would tolerate nothing that opposed it. Preaching to others was not all. He might do that, and it might be, as regards himself, labour in vain; he might lose everything-be rejected afterwards himself, if not personally a Christian. He was a Christian first of all, then a preacher, and a good preacher, because he was a Christian first. Thus, also (for the beginning of chapter 10 connects itself with the close of chapter 9), others might makes a profession, partake of the initiatory and other ordinances, as he might be a preacher, and after all not be owned of God. This warning is a testimony to the condition to which, in part at least, the assembly of God was already reduced: a warning always useful, but which supposes that those who bear the name of Christian, and have partaken of the ordinances of the church, no longer inspire that confidence which would receive them without question as the true sheep of Christ. The passage distinguishes between participation in Christian ordinances and the possession of salvation: a distinction always true, but which it is not necessary to make when Christian life is bright in those who have part in the outward privileges of the assembly.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1, 2. Am I not an apostle? Two objects are held in view in this chapter; to answer those, the Judaizers, who disparaged his authority by contrasts between him and the other apostles, and to enforce upon the church, by his example, self denial for the benefit of others. Am I not free? He had spoken (8:9) of Christian liberty He was free also, and an apostle who had seen the Lord, and hence, could witness to his resurrection.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul explains how he uses the liberty he has in Christ.

Am I not free?

Paul uses this rhetorical question to remind the Corinthians of the rights he has. AT: "I am a free person." (See: Rhetorical Question)

Am I not an apostle?

Paul uses this rhetorical question to remind the Corinthians of who he is and the rights he has. AT: "I am an apostle." (See: Rhetorical Question)

Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Paul uses this rhetorical question to remind the Corinthians of who he is. AT: "I have seen Jesus our Lord." (See: Rhetorical Question)

Are you not my workmanship in the Lord?

Paul uses this rhetorical question to remind the Corinthians of their relationship to him. AT: "You believe in Christ because I have worked the way the Lord wants me to." (See: Rhetorical Question)

you are the proof of my apostleship in the Lord

"Proof" here is a metonym for the evidence needed to prove something. AT: "you are evidence I can use to prove that the Lord has chosen me to be an apostle" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

free

apostle

Jesus

lord

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

Seen Jesus. See ch. 1Co 14:8; Act 9:17; Act 18:9; Act 22:17, 18; 2Co 12:1 sqq. Compare Act 22:14.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.