Commentary on 1 Corinthians 9:1-18

INTRODUCTION TO 1 CORINTHIANS 9

At the close of the preceding chapter St. Paul, in order to encourage the Corinthians to abstain from whatever might imperil the eternal welfare of their weaker brethren, called attention to his own determination never to do anything, however licit in itself, that could scandalize his brother in Christ. And now, lest they should say or think that he had promised more than he would be willing to fulfil, he goes into his own past life, as that of one who was free and a genuine Apostle, and shows how he had renounced the rights that were his, so as to promote the Gospel and the spiritual good of others. He had foregone the support which he could have claimed from the faithful, in order to make more beneficial his preaching and to attain to greater perfection (1 Cor 9:1-18); he had made himself the slave of all men in order to save all (1 Cor 9:19-23). The Corinthians, therefore, should imitate his life of austerity and self-denial for the sake of gaining the incorruptible crown of eternal life (1 Cor 9:24-27).

THE APOSTLE REFUSED SUPPORT FROM THE FAITHFUL FOR THE SAKE OF HIS PREACHING
A Summary of 1 Cor 9:1-18

As a genuine Apostle, equal in every way to the twelve, St. Paul had a right to be supported, as they had been, by the faithful for whom he labored in preaching the Gospel. But for fear that the pagans and the new converts might think he preached only for this temporal purpose, and not for their eternal interests, he freely chose to earn his living by his own hands. From this the Corinthians could see and learn what it meant to deny one’s self for spiritual ends and for the sake of others.

1 Cor 9:1. Am not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?

The Apostle anticipates what may be in the minds of his adversaries. They will explain his self-denial by saying he was not free to do otherwise; that he was not a real Apostle, and so could not demand his support from the faithful.

Here, therefore, St. Paul first claims the right of freedom which belongs to every Christian who is properly instructed; he next insists that he is a true Apostle like the rest. To be a genuine Apostle it was necessary (a) to have seen Christ risen from the dead (Acts 1:21, 22); and (b) to have been immediately commissioned by Christ to go and preach (Acts 10:41; Gal 1:1, 12). Now St. Paul had seen Christ, had been called to the Apostolate by Him, and had been commissioned to preach by Him (Acts 9:17; 18:9; 22:14 ff.; 26:15-18).

A further proof that he was a real Apostle lay in the evidence afforded by the fruits of his labors. Were not the Corinthians his work in the Lord, i.e., had he not converted them to the faith by his Apostolic labors among them?

Christ (Vulg., Christum) is not in the Greek.

1 Cor 9:2. And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

If unto others, etc., i.e., if in other places where he had not preached, he was not regarded as an Apostle, the Corinthians could not doubt the truth of his mission; for he had founded their Church and they were the seal, i.e., the proof and confirmation of his Apostleship.

In the Lord, as in verse 1, may mean in cooperation with the Lord; or that as Christians, whom he had converted, they were incorporated in the Lord.

And (Vulg., et) at the beginning of the verse should be omitted.

1 Cor 9:3. My defence with them that do examine me is this.

My defense with them, etc., i.e., his defense against those who would question his Apostleship was the Corinthian Church which he had founded, and which, in confirmation of his work, the Lord had blessed with abundant graces and favors (2 Cor 3:2).

1 Cor 9:4. Have not we power to eat and to drink?

Have not we power, etc. Although the plural is used, the Apostle is referring only to himself. He asks if he has not the right to receive their food, drink and other necessaries of life at the expense of the faithful. The reply is obviously in the affirmative, as illustrated in the following verse.

1 Cor 9:5. Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Just as the other Apostles, and even our Lord Himself (Matt 27:55; Luke 8:1 ff.), were accustomed to be followed on their missions by certain pious ladies of means who supported them, so St. Paul could have had such faithful assistants who would have provided for his needs; but he chose to labor with his own hands for his food and clothing, independently of anyone’s help.

A woman, a sister, i.e., a lady who is a Christian, a Christian lady (αδελφην γυναικα). The word γυνή is a general term signifying woman, married or single, and it is against the whole context and tradition, as well as what the Apostle said above (8:7, 8) about not having and not wanting to have a wife, to restrict its meaning here to a wife, as the Revised Version does. The great majority of the Fathers, both Latin and Greek, understand St. Paul here to speak of being accompanied by a woman like those who were accustomed to provide support for the Apostles on their missions. There was no fear of the Jews taking offence at such a custom on the part of those Apostles who preached to them, because their own Rabbins often received similar assistance from their pious female disciples (cf. Luke 8:2, 3). If St. Paul, however, had availed himself of his right in this matter, it might have caused scandal among the pagans.

It may be admitted that some of the Apostles had wives before being called by Christ (Mark 1:30), but afterwards they left all things to follow their divine Master (Matt 19:27; Luke 18:28, 29), and our Lord replying to Peter’s declaration, “Behold we have left all things,” enumerated “wife” among the things the Apostles had left for His “name’s sake.” If, therefore, on their missions the Apostles were accompanied by pious ladies, these were “not wives, but sisters,” as Clement of Alex, says (Strom. III. 6).

Brethren of the Lord, i.e., James the Less, Joseph, Simon and Jude (Matt 13:55), who were cousins of our Lord (Matt 12:46; 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). James (Mark 15:40; Acts 15:13; 21:18), Simon and Jude (Matt 10:3, 4; Acts 1:13) were Apostles.

Cephas, the Prince of the Apostles, is mentioned to give emphasis to the lawfulness of the custom just spoken of.

1 Cor 9:6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to do this?

Power to do this. Better, “Power to refrain from working” (εξουσιαν του μη εργαζεσθαι) , i.e., the right to be supported without working with our own hands, either by the faithful or by the help of pious ladies who could accompany us. St. Paul here, as in the preceding verse, is insisting that he was not obliged to support himself, as he had done ; he could have had his living provided for him either by the faithful, or by Christian ladies of means. Protestants lose the force of this whole argument by maintaining that wife is meant in verse 5. A wife would have been an added expense to St. Paul, a reason why he would have had to work harder with his own hands, to provide support for her as well as himself.

The mention of Barnabas looks as if he was known to the Corinthians.

1 Cor 9:7. Who serveth as a soldier at any time, at his own charges ? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth the flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Just as the soldier has a right to support from his country, as a husbandman and a shepherd have a right to the fruits of their farm and their flock, so has the Apostle a right to his maintenance from the faithful.

“This verse shows that a priest should have a soldier’s courage, a husbandman’s care, and a shepherd’s solicitude; and for it all should seek no more than bare necessaries” (St. Chrys.).

1 Cor 9:8. Speak I these things according to man? Or doth not the law also say these things?
1 Cor 9:9. For it is written in the law of Moses : Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

What has been just said is very reasonable, but St. Paul points to the divine sanction which he also has for his words. The Mosaic Law, given by God to the Jewish people, forbade the muzzling of the ox that was used to thresh the grain of their owners (Deut 25:4). The sheaves were spread on the floor of the barn and the ox was driven round and round upon them, until all the grain was trodden out of the straw. Now the Law forbade that the animal should be muzzled during this labor, so that, if it wished to grab a mouthful now and then, it might do so.

Doth God take care for oxen, i.e., did God make this law only for the sake of oxen? Did He not give it primarily for the sake of man, over whom He has a special providence? The meaning is that if God does not want the irrational laborer to be deprived of the food necessary for its maintenance and usefulness, how much more does He wish the human worker to receive his needed support!

1 Cor 9:10. Or doth he say this indeed for our sakes? For these thinge are written for our sakes: that he that plougheth, should plough in hope; and he that thrasheth, in hope to receive fruit.
Or doth he say, etc. Better, “Or is it not, indeed, said for our sakes?” This shows that God, in giving the above law, had our instruction chiefly in view, so that we may labor with the hope of receiving something for our work.

For these things, etc. Better, “For it was written for our sakes.”

In hope to receive fruit. Better, “In hope of partaking.”

1 Cor 9:11. If we have sown unto spiritual things, is it not a great matter if we reap your carnal things?

The Apostle’s contention that he has a right to support from the faithful is strengthened by a new thought. If for material labor one has the right to that temporal maintenance which is necessary for his life and usefulness, how much more has St. Paul a right to temporal support from the faithful for whom he has performed such a great spiritual service as he has done in making known to them the faith, and in converting them to Christianity! Temporal support would be little compensation for such surpassing blessings.

If we reap, etc. Two well-supported readings are possible here. That found in the oldest MSS. (B, A, and D) would seem to imply an actual partaking on the part of the Apostle of the Corinthians’ temporal goods. But as this does not fit the context, it is better to follow the other reading, which is supported by the Vulgate, Vetus Itala and the MSS., C D E F G. (Note: the above has been slightly edited by me)

1 Cor 9:12. If others be partakers of this power over you, why not we rather? Nevertheless, we have not used this power: but we bear all things, lest we should give any hindrance to the gospel of Christ.

If others, i.e., most probably, the other genuine teachers, like Apollo, who followed St. Paul at Corinth, and who, it seems, made use of their right to support by the faithful. If these subsequent preachers insisted on their rights, how much more could St. Paul, the founder of their Church, have insisted on his! And yet he did not, lest the evil and suspicious minded might thence take occasion to accuse him of false purposes, and thus hinder the spread of the Gospel.

This power over you (τη  εξουσια ταυτη), i.e., this right of support in regard to you (cf. 7:4).

1 Cor 9:13. Know you not, that they who work in the holy place, eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar, partake with the altar?

Another argument is drawn from the practice of the priests of the Old Law, who shared in the victims offered for sacrifice.

They who work in the holy place, i.e., they who minister in the Temple, performing the sacred functions (τα ιερα εργαζομενοι), namely, the priests and Levites, eat the things, etc., i.e., have part in the sacrifices offered in the Temple at Jerusalem, as was ordained by God (Num 18:8-20; Deut 10:9; 8:1).

And (Vulg., et), connecting the clauses of this verse, is not in the Greek.

1 Cor 9:14. So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel, should live by the gospel.

That the genuine preachers of the Gospel have a right to their temporal support has been so far proved from reason, from the authority of the Law, and from the practice of the priests of the Old Testament. A final argument is now given from the words of Christ Himself who said that the evangelical “workman is worthy of his meat” (Matt 10:10 ff.; Luke 10:7). The words of our Saviour do not mean that the Apostles were bound to insist on their right to support, but that they could, if they wished, and the faithful are obliged to admit this right and to comply with it.

1 Cor 9:15. But I have used none of these things. Neither have I written these things, that they should be so done unto me: for it is good for me to die, rather than that any man should make my glory void.

I have used none of these things, i.e., I have used none of the arguments just given to enforce my rights; or, better, I have made use of none of my rights as an Apostle.

Neither have I written, etc., i.e., the Apostle has not written these things with the intention of insisting on his temporal maintenance at the hands of the Corinthians; he would rather die than give up the superior benefit of preaching the Gospel without present emolument.

For it is good, etc. The Apostle breaks up his sentence here, in his eagerness to give vehement expression to his feelings. A better translation is: “It were well for me rather to die than my boast no one shall make void.” The meaning is that just given above.

1 Cor 9:16. For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me: for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.

The glorying (καυχημα) spoken of at the end of the preceding verse did not refer to the fact of having preached the Gospel, for since St. Paul was acting in obedience to the command of Christ in preaching (Acts 26:16 ff.; Rom 1:14), he was not free to do otherwise. His glory, therefore, consisted in preaching without insisting on his temporal rights, in denying himself the maintenance he might justly claim.

1 Cor 9:17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation is committed to me:

This verse is very difficult. To what does this thing refer? Does it refer to the mere fact of preaching the Gospel, which St. Paul was obliged to do, or to preaching the Gospel gratis, which he was not obliged to do? In our judgment the reference is rather to the fact of preaching the Gospel, of which there was question in the preceding verse. Willingly, then, means “uncommanded,” and against my will means under “necessity” (verse 16). The meaning of the verse therefore is: If St. Paul had preached the Gospel without having been commanded to do so, of his own choice, he would receive a special reward, and would have reason for glorying (verse 16); but if, as was the case, he preached because he had been commanded to preach, therefore under necessity, he was only fulfilling the commission entrusted to him, and so was not deserving of anything but the ordinary reward due to the fulfillment of one’s obligations.

A dispensation is committed, etc. Literally, “I have been entrusted with a stewardship.”

1 Cor 9:18. What is my reward then? That preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Had then the Apostle no special reward awaiting him, since the preaching of the Gospel was not his free choice but his bounden duty? Yes, his special reward consisted in foregoing his right to temporal support by the faithful and in preaching the Gospel without charge.

I abuse not. Better, “I use not to the full” (μη καταχρησασθαι). This and the preceding verse prove the existence and merit of works of supererogation.