Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Corinthians 9

Am I not an apostle?—A better rendering, following the word order in the better manuscripts, is: Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle? This phrasing allows the thought to develop more naturally from the previous chapter than it appears to in the English version.

He had mentioned his solemn resolve to forgo a freedom he rightfully possessed concerning eating meat. On another occasion, regarding his right to financial support from the Church, he also voluntarily sacrificed his freedom. Consequently, the Jewish party had denied the existence of these 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 (Acts 1:21). From the way the Apostle asks this question here, without directly answering it, it seems that even though a small minority might have questioned it at some time for partisan reasons, the fact was generally admitted and universally known that St. Paul did indeed see the Lord at the time of his conversion (Acts 9:4) and on other occasions (Acts 18:9; Acts 22:17).

Are not you 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 1 Corinthians 4:15).

If I be not an apostle unto others.—The allusion here is probably to some who may have arrived at Corinth after St. Paul’s departure, and who, not recognizing his Apostleship in relation to themselves, stirred up some of the Corinthians to repudiate it also. So the Apostle says, “Even if I am not an Apostle to these others, I am, in any case, to you; for you yourselves are the very proof and witness—the seal affixed to my appointment to the Apostolate.” The repetition of the words “in the Lord” in both these verses expresses the strong conviction, which is characteristic of the Apostle, that the source of all power and of all success is Christ Himself.

My answer...—The verse refers to what has gone before, and not to what follows. That (emphatic) is my answer to those who examine me as to the truth of my Apostleship. Both the words “answer” and “examine” are in the Greek the technical terms for a legal defense and examination before a tribunal.

Have we not power...?—This question follows the parenthetical argument contained in 1 Corinthians 9:2–3. Having established his right to be called an Apostle by the fact that he had seen the Lord and had been instrumental in their conversion, he now, in the same interrogative style, asserts his rights as an Apostle. The use of the plural “we” carries on the thought that he is claiming this right as one of the Apostles—all of whom have, as Apostles, such a right. The form in which the question is asked implies, “Surely we have this right.”

This verse, taken in connection with 1 Corinthians 8:9, where the same word in Greek, “liberty,” occurs in connection with eating, shows how this line of thought has grown out of the preceding subject. The question there, however, was that of eating meat offered to idols; the question here is the right to eat and drink (i.e., live) at the expense of the Church (Luke 10:7).

To lead about a sister, a wife—i.e., to take with us on our journeys a Christian woman as a wife. Roman Catholic theologians have interpreted this as referring to “the custom of Christian matrons attending as sisters upon the Apostles.” However, since the Apostle illustrates his meaning by referring to Peter, whom we know had a wife, such an interpretation is inadmissible.

In this verse, Saint Paul carries his statement of apostolic right to support one step further. Not only did he have a right to be supported himself, but the Church’s support of the married Apostles and their wives implied the same right for all. A practice that grew out of a misunderstanding of this passage’s true meaning led to serious scandal and was finally condemned by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).

The brethren of the Lord, and Cephas.—These are mentioned specifically, not as distinct from the Apostles (for Cephas, of course, was one), but as examples that would have great weight with the particular Jewish faction to whom this argument was presented. James was Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18).

The other brethren of our Lord were Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). They were not of the twelve Apostles; even after their conversion, they are mentioned as distinct from the Twelve (Acts 1:14), although James subsequently occupied an apostolic position (Galatians 2:9).

Various and ingenious suggestions have been made as to who these “brethren of the Lord” were; among others, that they were cousins, or children of Joseph by a former marriage. These views arose from a desire to establish the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The natural conclusion from studying the mention of their names in the Gospels, without preconceived prejudice, is that Joseph and Mary lived together after the miraculous birth of Christ and that these were their children.

This conclusion is also supported by the use of the word “first-born” in reference to our Lord (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7), the word “till” (Matthew 1:25), and the phrase “before they came together” (Matthew 1:18). Further support comes from their repeated mention as brethren in connection with His mother Mary (See Note on Matthew 12:46).