Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary 1 Corinthians 9

Paul’s reference to the spiritual freedom we have in Christ, coupled with his claim of apostleship, leads him to expand the theme of Christian freedom and apply it in a wider context than that of sacrificial meat. His illustration is particularly pertinent because it involves himself and his important rights as an apostle and Christian worker. The four rhetorical questions in v.1 (all anticipating a positive answer) relate to freedom and apostleship, the last three specifically relating to his apostleship. Paul contends that he is an “apostle” (GK 693) and then states one of the criteria for an apostle: he had seen the Lord (Acts 1:21–22; Acts 9:3–9). (Another evidence of apostleship is working signs and wonders [2 Corinthians 12:12], which Paul had done in Corinth.) Paul then contends that his apostleship had produced spiritual work “in the Lord”—the Corinthians were the fruit of his work. He expected them to accept him as an apostle—though others did not—because they were really the seal that stamped his apostleship as genuine.

Paul’s reference to the spiritual freedom we have in Christ, coupled with his claim of apostleship, leads him to expand the theme of Christian freedom and apply it in a wider context than that of sacrificial meat. His illustration is particularly pertinent because it involves himself and his important rights as an apostle and Christian worker. The four rhetorical questions in v.1 (all anticipating a positive answer) relate to freedom and apostleship, the last three specifically relating to his apostleship. Paul contends that he is an “apostle” (GK 693) and then states one of the criteria for an apostle: he had seen the Lord (Acts 1:21–22; Acts 9:3–9). (Another evidence of apostleship is working signs and wonders [2 Corinthians 12:12], which Paul had done in Corinth.) Paul then contends that his apostleship had produced spiritual work “in the Lord”—the Corinthians were the fruit of his work. He expected them to accept him as an apostle—though others did not—because they were really the seal that stamped his apostleship as genuine.

Paul now begins to defend himself against those who have criticized his apostleship on the ground that he had not exercised all the rights one might expect an apostle to use. He brings up certain rights that he and others, such as Barnabas, had the authority to exercise. The first one, “the right to food and drink,” means, in the context, daily provisions at the expense of the church (cf. vv.9–11). Next he claims the right to have a wife join him in his missionary travels. In referring to the “rest of the apostles” (v.5), Paul is not saying that all were necessarily married, but that at least a larger part were. The phrase “brothers of the Lord” should be taken at face value—physical brothers (i.e., half-brothers), children of both Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:18– 25; 12:46; 13:55; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19).

In v.6 Paul raises the practical question of his and Barnabas’s right to be supported financially in the ministry. It was Paul’s practice to support himself materially by tentmaking (Acts 18:2–3; 1 Corinthians 4:12) in order not to be a burden to the church. Some apparently misunderstood this to mean that he was not on a par with other apostles and Christian workers who depended on the church to support them. In not denying that principle, Paul asserts, by way of a rhetorical question, that he has a right to be supported.

Paul now begins to defend himself against those who have criticized his apostleship on the ground that he had not exercised all the rights one might expect an apostle to use. He brings up certain rights that he and others, such as Barnabas, had the authority to exercise. The first one, “the right to food and drink,” means, in the context, daily provisions at the expense of the church (cf. vv.9–11). Next he claims the right to have a wife join him in his missionary travels. In referring to the “rest of the apostles” (v.5), Paul is not saying that all were necessarily married, but that at least a larger part were. The phrase “brothers of the Lord” should be taken at face value—physical brothers (i.e., half-brothers), children of both Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:18– 25; 12:46; 13:55; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19).

In v.6 Paul raises the practical question of his and Barnabas’s right to be supported financially in the ministry. It was Paul’s practice to support himself materially by tentmaking (Acts 18:2–3; 1 Corinthians 4:12) in order not to be a burden to the church. Some apparently misunderstood this to mean that he was not on a par with other apostles and Christian workers who depended on the church to support them. In not denying that principle, Paul asserts, by way of a rhetorical question, that he has a right to be supported.

Paul now begins to defend himself against those who have criticized his apostleship on the ground that he had not exercised all the rights one might expect an apostle to use. He brings up certain rights that he and others, such as Barnabas, had the authority to exercise. The first one, “the right to food and drink,” means, in the context, daily provisions at the expense of the church (cf. vv.9–11). Next he claims the right to have a wife join him in his missionary travels. In referring to the “rest of the apostles” (v.5), Paul is not saying that all were necessarily married, but that at least a larger part were. The phrase “brothers of the Lord” should be taken at face value—physical brothers (i.e., half-brothers), children of both Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:18– 25; 12:46; 13:55; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19).

In v.6 Paul raises the practical question of his and Barnabas’s right to be supported financially in the ministry. It was Paul’s practice to support himself materially by tentmaking (Acts 18:2–3; 1 Corinthians 4:12) in order not to be a burden to the church. Some apparently misunderstood this to mean that he was not on a par with other apostles and Christian workers who depended on the church to support them. In not denying that principle, Paul asserts, by way of a rhetorical question, that he has a right to be supported.