John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 9

Am I not free? He confirms by facts what he had stated immediately before—that he would rather never taste flesh during his whole life than give occasion for stumbling to a brother; 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 anyone upon others should be submitted to by himself. More especially, a Christian teacher should impose this necessity upon himself, so that he may always be able to confirm his doctrine by an exemplary life. We know by experience that it is a very unpleasant thing Paul required from the Corinthians—to refrain, for the sake of their brothers, from using 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 mentions what he had already done.

He brings forward a remarkable instance regarding his having denied himself the liberty which he might otherwise have used, purely so that he might give the false Apostles no occasion for slander. 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 the right of the Apostles to receive food and clothing. This he does, partly to stir them up more to forgo many things for the sake of their brothers after his example (because they were unduly tenacious in retaining their own rights), and partly to more fully expose the unreasonableness of slanderers, who took occasion to revile from what was anything but blameworthy.

He also speaks interrogatively, 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 so that he might not be reckoned inferior in any respect to the other Apostles, for the malevolent and envious loudly asserted this one thing on all occasions—that he had received from human hands whatever he had of the gospel, since he had never seen Christ.

And, certainly, he had not conversed with Christ while he was in the world, but Christ had appeared to him after his resurrection. It was no lesser privilege, however, to have seen Christ in his immortal glory than to have seen him in the abasement of mortal flesh.

He also mentions this vision later (1 Corinthians 15:8), and it is mentioned twice in 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, the appointment Christ declared from heaven had no less authority.

Are not ye my work? He now, in the second place, establishes his Apostleship from its effect, because he had won 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 way, a new creation of the soul. But how will this correspond with what we read 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 by itself, we must always speak of the ministry’s efficacy in such a way 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 discussed without any comparison to God, then, as in this passage, its efficacy is honorably mentioned with high praise.

For, in that case, the question is not what man can do by himself without God, but, on the contrary, God himself, who is the author, is joined 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 accomplishes through his hands.

If I am not an Apostle to others. The purpose of this is to establish his authority among the Corinthians, placing it beyond all dispute. “If there are those,” he says, “who doubt my Apostleship, to you, at least, it ought to be beyond all doubt; for, since I planted your Church by my ministry, you are either not believers, or you must necessarily recognize me as an Apostle.”

And lest he seem to rest on mere words, he states that the reality itself was evident, because God had sealed his Apostleship by the faith of the Corinthians. Should anyone, however, object that this also suits false apostles, who gather disciples for themselves, I answer that pure doctrine is required above all things, so that one may have confirmation of his ministry in God’s sight from its effect.

Therefore, there is nothing here to give impostors reason for congratulation, if they have deceived any of the populace, indeed, even nations and kingdoms, by their falsehoods. Although in some cases people are instrumental in spreading the kingdom of Christ, who, nevertheless, do not preach the gospel sincerely, as is said in Philippians 1:16, Paul, with good reason, infers from the fruit of his labor that he is divinely commissioned. For the structure of the Corinthian Church was such that the blessing of God could easily be seen shining forth in it, which ought to have served as a confirmation of Paul’s office.

My defense. Besides the main subject he is currently addressing, it also appears to have been his intention to refute, in passing, the slanders of those who loudly protested against his calling, as if he were an ordinary minister. “I am accustomed,” he says, “to present you as my shield, if anyone detracts from the honor of my Apostleship.” Therefore, it follows that the Corinthians are harmful and hostile to themselves if they do not acknowledge him as an apostle. For if their faith was a solemn testimony to Paul’s Apostleship, and his defense against slanderers, the one could not be invalidated without the other also being undermined.

Where others translate — those who interrogate me, I have rendered it as — those that examine me — for he refers to those who disputed his Apostleship. Latin writers, I confess, speak of a criminal being interrogated according to the laws, but the meaning of the Greek word ἀνακρίνειν, which Paul uses, seemed to me to be better conveyed in this way.

Have we not power? He concludes from what has already been said that he had a right to receive food and clothing from them, for Paul ate and drank, but not at the expense of the Church. This, then, was one liberty that he dispensed with. The other was that he did not have a wife — to be maintained, also, at the public expense.

Eusebius infers from these words that Paul was married, but had left his wife somewhere so that she might not be a burden to the Churches. However, there is no foundation for this, for Paul could have made this argument even if he were unmarried.

In honoring a Christian wife with the name of sister, he intimates, first of all, by this, how firm and lovely the connection between a pious couple should be, as they are held by a double tie.

Furthermore, he hints at the same time what modesty and honorable conduct should exist between them. From this, too, we may infer, how very far marriage is from being unsuitable for the ministers of the Church.

I pass over the fact that the Apostles practiced it, whose example we will discuss soon, but Paul here teaches, in general terms, what is allowable for all.

Even as the other Apostles. In addition to the Lord’s permission, he mentions the common practice of others. And with the aim of bringing out more fully the waiving of his right, he proceeds step by step. In the first place, he brings forward the Apostles. He then adds, “Indeed, even the brethren of the Lord themselves also make use of it without hesitation—furthermore, Peter himself, to whom the first place is assigned by common consent, allows himself the same liberty.” By the brethren of the Lord, he means John and James, who were accounted pillars, as he states elsewhere (Galatians 2:9). And, as is customary in Scripture, he gives the name of brethren to those who were connected with Him by relationship.

Now, if anyone should think to establish Popery from this, he would be acting ridiculously. We confess that Peter was acknowledged as first among the Apostles, as it is necessary in every society for there to be someone who presides over the others. And they were, of their own accord, prepared to respect Peter for the eminent endowments by which he was distinguished, as it is proper to esteem and honor all who excel in the gifts of God’s grace.

That preeminence, however, was not lordship—indeed, it had nothing resembling lordship. For while he was eminent among the others, he was still subject to them as his colleagues. Furthermore, it is one thing to have preeminence in one Church, and quite another to claim for oneself a kingdom or dominion over the whole world.

Indeed, even if we were to concede everything regarding Peter, what has this to do with the Pope? For as Matthias succeeded Judas (Acts 1:26), so some Judas might succeed Peter. Furthermore, we see that during a period of more than nine hundred years among his successors, or at least among those who boast that they are his successors, there has not been one who was any better than Judas. This, however, is not the place to discuss these points. Consult my Institutes (Volume 3).

One further thing must be noted here: the Apostles had no horror of marriage, which the Papal clergy abominate so much as unbecoming to the sanctity of their order. But it was after their time that this admirable discovery was made: that the priests of the Lord are polluted if they have intercourse with their lawful wives. Eventually, matters reached such a point that Pope Syricius did not hesitate to call marriage “a pollution of the flesh, in which no one can please God.” What then must become of the poor Apostles, who continued in that pollution until death?

Here, however, they have devised a refined subtlety to make their escape. For they say that the Apostles gave up the use of the marriage bed but led about their wives with them, so that they might receive the fruits of the gospel—or, in other words, support at public expense. As if they could not have been maintained by the Churches unless they wandered about from place to place; and furthermore, as if it were likely that they would run here and there of their own accord, and without any necessity, just so they might live in idleness at public expense! As for the explanation given by Ambrose, referring to other people’s wives who followed the Apostles to hear their doctrine, it is exceedingly forced.