Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 9:1

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?" — 1 Corinthians 9:1 (ASV)

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?