Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 9

1 Corinthians CHAPTER 9

The apostle had, in 1 Corinthians 8:13, mentioned his willingness to deny himself if he might be the means of benefiting others. He had acted on this principle, and on this he purposed to act. The mention of this principle of action seems to have led him to a further illustration of it in his own case. In this illustration, he also aimed to meet an objection that had been urged against him at Corinth.

The scope of this chapter seems to have been not only to give an illustration of this principle (1 Corinthians 9:27) but also to show that this principle on which he acted would account for his conduct when with them and would meet all the objections that had been made against his apostleship. These objections seem to have been:

1. That he had not seen Jesus Christ and, therefore, could not be an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1).

2. That he did not live like the other apostles—that he was unmarried, was a solitary man, and a wanderer, and was unlike the other apostles in his mode of life, not indulging as apostles might do in the ordinary comforts of life (1 Corinthians 9:4, 6).

3. That he and Barnabas were compelled to labor for their support and were conscious, therefore, that they had no pretensions to the apostolic office (1 Corinthians 9:6).

4. That the fact that he was unsupplied—that he did not apply to Christians for his maintenance, that he did not urge this as a right—showed that he was conscious that he had no claims to the apostolic character and rank.

To all this he replies in this chapter. The main drift and design of his reply is to show that he acted on the principle suggested in 1 Corinthians 8:13: that of denying himself. Consequently, though he had a right to maintenance, the fact that he did not urge that right was no proof that he was not sent from God. Instead, it was rather a proof of his being actuated by the high and holy principles that ought to influence those who were called to this office. In urging this reply, he shows:

1. That he had seen Jesus Christ and had this qualification for the office of an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1).

2. That he had the power like others to partake of the common enjoyments of life, and that his not doing it was no proof that he was not an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:4).

3. That he was not prohibited from entering the domestic relations as others had done but had the right to enjoy the same privileges if he chose. His not doing it was no proof that he was not an apostle but was an instance of his denying himself for the good of others (1 Corinthians 9:5).

4. That he was not under a necessity of laboring with his own hands but that he might have required support as others did. His laboring was only another instance of his readiness to deny himself to promote the welfare of others (1 Corinthians 9:6).

He illustrates this sentiment through the remainder of the chapter by showing that he had a right to support in the work of the apostleship. His not insisting on it was an instance of his being willing to deny himself so that he might do good to others. He did not urge this right because to do that might injure the cause (1 Corinthians 9:12, 16), and whether he received support or not, he was bound to preach the gospel. In this, he shows:

1. That God gave him the right to support if he chose to exercise it (1 Corinthians 9:7–10, 13).

2. That it was equitable that he should be supported (1 Corinthians 9:11).

3. That the Lord had ordained this as a general law: that those who preached the gospel should live by it (1 Corinthians 9:14).

4. That he had not chosen to avail himself of it because it might do injury (1 Corinthians 9:12, 16).

5. That necessity was laid upon him at all events to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:16).

6. That if he did this without an earthly reward, he would be rewarded in heaven in a distinguished manner (1 Corinthians 9:17, 18).

7. That he had made it the grand principle of his life not to make money but to save souls, and that he had sought this by a course of continued self-denial (1 Corinthians 9:19–22).

8. That all this was done for the sake of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:23).

9. That he had a grand and glorious object in view, which required him, after the manner of athletes, to keep his body under, to practice self-denial, to be temperate, to forego many comforts of which he might otherwise have partaken. The grandeur and glory of this object was enough to justify all his self-denial and to make all his sacrifices pleasant (1 Corinthians 9:24–27).

Thus, the whole chapter is an incidental discussion of the subject of his apostleship, in illustration of the sentiment advanced in 1 Corinthians 8:13: that he was willing to practice self-denial for the good of others. It 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 that should actuate the Christian ministry to be found anywhere.

All classical writings would be searched in vain, and all records of secular history, for an instance of such pure and elevated principle as is presented in this chapter.

Am I not an apostle? (1 Corinthians 9:1). This was the point to be settled. It is probable that some at Corinth had denied that he could be an apostle, since it was necessary, in order to be one, 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? (1 Corinthians 9:1). Am I not a free man? Have I not the liberty that all Christians possess, and especially that all the apostles possess? The liberty referred to here is doubtless the privilege or right of abstaining from labor, of enjoying the domestic relations of life as others did, and of support as a public minister and apostle.

Probably some had objected to his claims of apostleship because he had not used this right, and because they thought 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? (1 Corinthians 9:1). 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 Savior. This is often declared expressly .

The reason for 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 PECULIARITY of the apostolic office. That this was the case is abundantly manifest from Matthew 28:18-19, Luke 24:48, Acts 1:21–22, Acts 2:32, and Acts 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 Savior, 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, so that he might have this qualification for the apostolic office (Acts 9:3–5, 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 (Acts 22:14–15; Acts 26:16; 1 Corinthians 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. It also follows that the apostles could have no successors in that which constituted the PECULIARITY of their office, and that the office must have commenced and ended with them.

Are not you my work in the Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1). Have you not been converted by my labors, or under my ministry? 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. Since Paul had labored there as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly commissioned by God.

A minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his labors as proof that he is sent by him. 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 to show that he is in the employ of God? What could be more consoling to his own mind? What could be more satisfactory to the world?

If I am not an apostle to others.

"If I have not given evidence to others of my apostolic mission—of my being sent by the Lord Jesus—yet I have to you.

"Assuredly, you among whom I have labored so long and so successfully should not doubt that I am sent from the Lord. You have been well acquainted with me; you have witnessed my endowments, you have seen my success, and you have had abundant evidence that I have been sent on this great work.

"It is therefore strange that you doubt my apostolic commission, and it is unkind of you to interpret my declining to accept your contributions and aid for my support as if I were conscious that I was not entitled to that."

For the seal of my apostleship; your conversion is the demonstration that I am an apostle. Paul uses strong language. He does not mean to say that their conversion merely provided some evidence that he was an apostle, but that it was absolute proof and irrefutable demonstration that he was. A seal is that which is affixed to a deed or other instrument to make it firm, secure, and indisputable. It is the proof or demonstration of the validity of the conveyance or of the writing (John 3:33; John 6:27).

The sense here is, therefore, that the conversion of the Corinthians was a certain demonstration that he was an apostle and should be so regarded and treated by them. It was such a proof for these reasons:

1. Because Paul claimed to be an apostle while among them, and God blessed and confirmed this claim.
2. Their conversion could not have been accomplished by man; it was the work of God. It was the evidence, then, which God gave to Paul and to them that He was with him and had sent him.
3. They knew him, had seen him, heard him, were acquainted with his doctrines and manner of life, and could bear testimony to what he was and what he taught.

We may remark that the conversion of sinners is the best evidence to a minister that he is sent from God. The divine blessing on his labors should cheer his heart and lead him to believe that God has sent him and that He approves of him. And every minister should so live and labor, should so deny himself, that he may be able to appeal to the people among whom he labors that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus.

Mine answer. Greek, emē apologia, meaning my apology or my defence. This same word occurs in Acts 22:1; Acts 25:16; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Philippians 1:7, 17; 2 Timothy 4:16; and 1 Peter 3:15.

Here it means his answer or defence against those who sat in judgment on his claims to be an apostle.

To them that do examine me. This refers to those who inquire of me, or who censure and condemn me as not having any claims to the apostolic office. The word used here (anakrinō) is properly a forensic term and is usually applied to judges in courts—to those who sit in judgment, and investigate and decide in litigated cases brought before them (Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8).

The apostle here may possibly allude to the arrogance and pride of those who presumed to sit as judges on his qualification for the apostolic office. It is not meant that Paul had given this answer previously, but that this was the defence he had to offer.

Is this. This refers to what follows: the statements made in the subsequent verses. In these statements (1 Corinthians 9:4–6 and following), he seems to have designed to take up their objections to his apostolic claims one by one and to show that they had no force.

Have we not power, exousian. Have we not the right? The word power here is evidently used in the sense of right, (Compare to John 1:12, margin); and the apostle means to say that though they had not exercised this right by demanding maintenance, yet it was not because they were conscious that they had no such right, but because they chose to forgo it for wise and important purposes.

To eat and to drink; that is, to be maintained at the expense of those among whom we labour. Have we not a right to demand that they provide us with proper support? By the interrogative form of the statement, Paul intends more strongly to affirm that they had such a right.

The interrogative mode is often adopted to express the strongest affirmation. The objection urged here seems to have been this: "You, Paul and Barnabas, labour with your own hands (Acts 18:3). Other religious teachers lay claim to maintenance and are supported without personal labour. This is the case with pagan and Jewish priests, and with Christian teachers among us. You must be conscious, therefore, that you are not apostles and that you have no claim or right to support."

To this, Paul's answer is: "We admit that we labour with our own hands. But your inference does not follow. It is not because we do not have a right to such support, and it is not because we are conscious that we have no such claim, but it is for a higher purpose. It is because it will do good if we do not urge this right and enforce this claim." That they had such a right, Paul proves at length in the subsequent part of the chapter.

Have we not power? Have we not a right? The objection here seems to have been that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they traveled without wives. The objectors urged that others had wives, took them with them, and expected provision to be made for them as well as for themselves. They therefore showed that they felt they had a claim to support for their families and were conscious that they were sent by God.

But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship and no right to support. To this Paul replies, as before, that they had a right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right.

To lead about. To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place to place; and to have them maintained at the expense of the churches among which we labor.

A sister, a wife. The margin says, "or woman." This phrase has greatly perplexed commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, "A wife who should be a Christian and regarded as sustaining the relation of a Christian sister." Probably Paul meant to allude to the fact that the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that it was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would be a Christian, or that he would marry no other. (Compare to 1 Corinthians 7:11).

As well as other apostles. It is evident from this that the apostles generally were married. The phrase used here is oi loipoi apostoloi, (the remaining apostles, or the other apostles). And if they were married, it is right and proper for ministers to marry now, whatever the papist may say to the contrary.

It is safer to follow the example of the apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the apostles had wives with them on their journeys may have been various. They may have been, for instance, to give instruction and counsel to those of their own sex to whom the apostles could not have direct access, or to minister to the needs of their husbands as they traveled.

It is to be remembered that they traveled among pagans; they had no acquaintances and no friends there. They therefore took with them their female friends and wives to minister to them and sustain them in sickness, trial, etc. Paul says that he and Barnabas had a right to do this, but they had not used this right because they chose rather to make the gospel without charge (1 Corinthians 9:18), and thus they judged they could do more good. It follows from this:

1. That it is right for ministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy is contrary to apostolic example.

2. It is right for missionaries to marry and to take their wives with them to pagan lands. The apostles were missionaries and spent their lives in pagan nations, as missionaries do now, and there may be as good reasons for missionaries to marry now as there were then.

3. Yet there are men, like Paul, who can do more good without being married. There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable that they should marry, and there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the unmarried state for a missionary as preferable and advisable. Probably the same is to be said of most missionaries today: that they could do more good if unmarried than if burdened with the cares of families.

And as the brethren of the Lord. These were the brothers of the Lord Jesus—James, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). It seems from this that although at first they did not believe in him (John 7:5) and had regarded him as disgraced (Mark 3:21), they had subsequently become converted and were employed as ministers and evangelists. It is also evident from this statement that they were married and were accompanied by their wives in their travels.

And Cephas. This refers to Peter .

This proves:

1. As well as the declaration in Matthew 8:14, that Peter had been married.

2. That he had a wife after he became an apostle and while engaged in the work of the ministry.

3. That his wife accompanied him in his travels.

4. That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be married now. Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter, the Pope of Rome, should forbid marriage when Peter himself was married? Is it not a proof how little the papacy regards the Bible, and the example and authority of those from whom it pretends to derive its power? And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness everywhere, should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the Christian world? And is it not strange that this, with all the other corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted to be imposed on the enlightened people of the United States [or of Great Britain], as a part of the religion of Christ?