1 Corinthians 9:1-12

Applebury's Comments

Text

1 Corinthians 9:1-12 a. Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. 3 My defence to them that examine me is this. 4 Have we no right to eat and to drink? 5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles. and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working? 7 What soldier ever serveth at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth, 10 or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking. 11 If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more?

Paul's Rights as an Apostle (1-12a)

Commentary

Am I not free?This chapter must be read in the light of what the apostle had just written in chapter eight. A Christian had a right to eat the meats that had been sacrificed to idols because he knew the truth about idols. This righttranslated liberty in the American Standard Versionwas not to be used in such a manner as to cause the weak brother to stumble.

Paul was just as free as any other Christian to exercise his judgment about eating this kind of food, for the truth of Christ had set him free from all rules and regulations and superstitions of men. It had, indeed, set him free from the bondage of the Jewish law. It had set him free from the bondage of sin. See John 8:32 and Romans 6:22. It was for freedom that Christ had set him free, and he was not becoming entangled again in any yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1). But what he had recommended to others about the limitation of Christian liberty, he was free to observe for himself (1 Corinthians 8:13).

am I not an apostle?All this group of questions are so framed as to suggest affirmative answers. I am an apostle, am I not? The question of his freedom and of his apostleship could only be answered by yes. The question as to his apostleship lays the ground for his argument that he has the right to expect material support from those to whom he preached the gospela right which he was to forgo.

have I not seen Jesus Our Lord?Again, the affirmative answer is suggested. I have seen Jesus Our Lord, have I not? This was an essential qualification of an apostle. Their task was to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:22). It is true that others of the apostles had been eyewitnesses of the things that occurred during the ministry of the Lord (Luke 1:2;2 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 2:3-4), but the essential thing was that they should be witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 2:32).

This was so important in the life and ministry of Paul that Luke who records the story of his conversion mentions it three times, twice in Paul's own words (Acts 9:3-6; Acts 22:5-11; Acts 26:12-20). In the list of -appearances of Our Lord, Paul gives this humble but significant testimony: and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also (1 Corinthians 15:8).

are not ye my work in the Lord?We can show that an affirmative answer is implied by stating in this way: You are my work in the Lord, are you not? No one of them could deny it. They had heard the gospel from the lips of the apostle. Their faith in Christ depended upon it. Their very hope of eternal life in Him was based on the gospel Paul preached. When they admitted this, they also had to admit that he was an apostle and that he was free in the Lord.

If to others I am not an apostle.Paul had his critics at Corinth, but it is doubtful if the members of the church were in the group that denied his apostleship. Some were for Cephas, some for Apollos, and some for Paul. But this seems to be a matter of leaders and not a question as to Paul's apostleship. Then who were they who were denying that he was an apostle? In all probability, the Judaizers. These, whom he calls false brethren, had disrupted the liberty of the churches of Galatia and had attempted to do so in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:4-5). Paul mentions these critics in 2 Corinthians 10:7-11. If any man trusteth in himself that he is Christ'S, let him consider this again with himself, that, even as he is Christ'S, so also are we. For though I should glory somewhat abundantly concerning the authority (which the Lord gave for building you up, and not casting you down), I shall not be put to shame: that I may not seem as if I would terrify you by my letters. For his letters, they say, are weighty and strong; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account. Let such a one reckon this, that, what we are in word by letters when we are absent, such are we also in dead when we are present. He speaks of them ironically as the very chiefest apostles (2 Corinthians 11:15). He says that such are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13).

yet at least I am with you.The Corinthians of all people could scarcely afford to deny his apostleship for they had become Christians through his preaching. This reminder also lays the ground for his claim to the right to support from them which he develops later in the chapter. He could not prove to any one that he had seen the Lord; but the Corinthians at any rate had no need of such evidence to convince them that he was an Apostle. He seems to be glancing at the rival teachers who questioned his claim to the title (Plummer, I C C, First Corinthians, p. 178)

for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.A seal stamped on a document certified that it was genuine and that it was trustworthy. The Christian life of the Corinthians was the seal that certified that Paul was a genuine apostle of Christ and that he was to be trusted. He adds, My defense to them that examine me is this. Some commentators take this statement to refer to what follows, but it makes good sense to take it with what goes before, for it really completes his statement about the defense he had made for his apostleship.

Have we no right to eat and drink?This question containing a double negative is so framed as to imply a negative answer: It isn-'t that we do not have a right to eat and drink, is it? Who could deny him the right to food and drink as a result of his work? Having established, at least to the Corinthians, that he was an apostle, he began a series of arguments to establish his right to support.

right to lead about a wife that is a believer.His question is about his right to be accompanied on his missionary journeys by a wife who is a Christian. This had nothing to do with whether or not he was married. See chapter seven for the discussion of this point. He is merely arguing his right to do so, not stating as a fact that he is being accompanied by a wife. This, it seems, is another of his rights which he had given up for the sake of his work in the gospel.

The word translated believer is actually sister. The misunderstanding of this text that was used by some at a later time to support the practice of entering into some kind of spiritual marriage has no support in the correct interpretation of the passage. Sister must mean that the wife was to be a Christian. His question was: It isn-'t that we do not have a right to be accompanied on our journeys by a Christian wife, is it? Who could deny him the right?

the rest of the apostles.Paul had the same right as the rest of the apostles to claim support for himself and a family. We have nothing in Scripture to show that any of them were married except Cephas. One of the outstanding miracles of Jesus-' ministry was the healing of Peter's wife's mother (Luke 4:38). But the absence of evidence does not prove that the others were not married, and Paul seems to imply that they were .

and the brethren of the Lord.When Jesus came into His own country and entered the synagogue and taught the people, they were astonished at His wisdom and said, Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joseph, and Simon? And his sisters, are they not all with us (Matthew 13:55-56)? It would seem that those who knew the family of Jesus understood that His brethren were the children of Joseph and Mary. This is the natural thing to suppose, although some have suggested that these whom Matthew calls brothers were cousins or the children of Joseph by some former marriage. Such inventions of the imagination are not necessary in the light of the plain statement of Matthew (Matthew 1:25). After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary reared a family who are known as the brethren of the Lord.

John records that even his brethren did not believe on him during His ministry (John 7:5). But this does not indicate that they joined with the Jews who hated Him and sought to kill Him (John 7:1). Some of His friends at one time thought that he was beside himself (Mark 3:21), and came to rescue Him from the crowds that gathered about Him to the extent that they could not so much as eat bread (Mark 3:20). It was at this time that His mother and His brethren came and standing outside the circle of the crowd sent unto Him asking Him to go home with them (Mark 3:31).This certainly indicates that His family held Him in high esteem even though they did not at the time recognize Him as Messiah. It was not until they were compelled to do so by the force of the evidence of His resurrection that they were found in the company of believers (Acts 1:14). It is interesting to note that James, the author of he epistle that bears his name and (we suppose) the brother of Jesus, calls himself a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ (James 1:1). This is one of the strongest statements of the deity of Jesus that we have. His brother had known Him as the oldest one of the family and surely as a wonderful brother, and, when all the evidence was in, they too accepted Him as their Lord. Paul mentions James the Lord's brother as one of those whom he saw when he went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Galatians 1:19).

We have no record in Scripture as to the marital status of these brethren of Our Lord, but we can safely assume that Paul did know about them and that this information was generally known. His point in mentioning them in exactly the same as in mentioning the right of the apostles to receive support for their families.

and Cephas?The prominence of Cephas (Peter) justified Paul in mentioning him, although everyone knew that he was one of the apostles. His prominence led some to ascribe preeminence to Peter, something that is in no way supported in Scriptures. Paul mentions him because he must have been well known to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 3:22). His point is that he had just as much right as Cephas to receive his support from those to whom he preached the gospel.

Or I only and Barnabas.It is interesting that Paul should mention Barnabas, his associate at Antioch and companion on the first missionary journey (Acts 11:22-26; Acts 13:1-3). They had parted company over John Mark just before starting the second journey that finally led Paul to Corinth (Acts 15:2; Acts 15:25-26; Acts 15:31-41). The reference to Mark in Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 4:11 and this one to Barnabas suggest that the sharp contention between them was a matter of policy and not a personal quarrel unbecoming to Christian brethren.

Were Paul and Barnabas, for some strange reason, to be excluded from this right to refrain from working for their living in order that their whole time might be given to the preaching of the gospel? Paul is only arguing for the right. The Corinthians were well aware of the fact that when he came to Corinth he made his own living, at least in part, by tentmaking (Acts 18:1-3). But tentmaking, it seems, was only temporary, for other churches sent support to him from time to time. Ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need (Philippians 4:15-16). Paul called the attention of the Corinthians to this later. He asked, Did I commit a sin a abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I preached to you the gospel of God for naught? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you; and when I was present with you and was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want; and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself (2 Corinthians 11:7-9).

Do I speak these things after the manner of men?In arguing his right to receive support, Paul turns to some everyday examples to prove his point. The soldier doesn-'t provide his own rations; the one who plants a vineyard expects to eat the fruit it produces; the one who feeds a flock expects to use the milk of the flock for food. All of these are supported by the work they do.

or saith not the law the same thing?He appealed to the higher authority of the law of Moses to further emphasize his right. The law said, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn (Deuteronomy 25:4). It was necessary, of course, for Paul to show how this rule applied to him. He asks, is it for the oxen that God careth? While it is true that the original provision was for the protection of the oxen, Paul is suggesting that it was not only for them that God cares. Certainly God who provided that the ox should be fed from the work he was doing would have even more concern that His apostles receive support from their work of preaching His gospel. He adds, For our sakes it was written. Two more examples are used to enforce this application: The man who plows the field ought to plow in hope of having a share in the crop he is going to raise. The man who threshes ought to do so with the hope of partaking of the harvest.

If we sowed unto you spiritual things.This is the real issue: He had shared the gospel message with them; they believed the word of the cross which he preached; they believed it and got themselves baptized, and thus they were washed, they were sanctified, they were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our Lord (1 Corinthians 6:11). These were the spiritual things they received as a result of his labors among them.

is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?The argument is clear enough. He did have an indisputable right to receive support from them. In reality, this was a small matter in comparison to the blessing they had received through his efforts in their behalf.

By carnal things he refers to material things such as food and drink. He had used the word carnal in a different sense in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. See notes on these verses.

Robertson, in Word Pictures, Vol. IV, page 145, assumes that Paul teaches the same lesson in Galatians 6:6. It is highly probable, however, that that passage suggests the mutual obligation of teacher and those who are taught to actually share in the good things of the gospel message.

If others partake of this right over you.This is apparently a reference to those same men who were questioning Paul's apostleship. They, in all probability, had been taking support from the Corinthians. Paul refused to do so that he might show what sort they were (2 Corinthians 11:12).

But for the sake of argument, he contends that if others had this right the apostles were more entitled to it then they.