Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 9:5
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife ] The ordinary interpretation of this passage is (1) that St Paul here asserts his right, if he pleased, to take with him a wife who was a member of the Christian body, and to have her maintained at the expense of the community. The word sister, like the words brother, brethren, is equivalent to ‘member of the Christian Church’ in Rom 16:1; St Jas 2:15; 2Jn 1:13 (perhaps) and ch. 1Co 7:15 of this Epistle. This privilege was claimed by the other Apostles with a view, as Stanley suggests, of obtaining access to the women, who in the East usually dwelt apart. But there is (2) another interpretation which would translate the word here rendered wife by woman (as in the margin of our version), and suppose that the tie which connected St Paul with the Christian woman he claimed to ‘lead about’ with him was nothing but that of their common Christianity. In support of this view St Luk 8:2-3, is quoted. This opinion can be traced back as far as Tertullian in the second century. But St Paul speaks of only one such person, and it is improbable that in a society so corrupt as the heathen society of that age everywhere was, the Apostles of Christ would have run so serious a risk of misconstruction as would have been involved in such a practice. The conduct of Simon Magus, who led about with him a woman of scandalous character, the misinterpretations so common in the Apostolic age of the innocent affection of the Christians for each other, and of their nightly meetings, shew how necessary prudence was. Besides, this interpretation misses the point of the argument, which was, that the original twelve Apostles claimed the right to throw not only their own maintenance, but that of the members of their families, upon the Church. The various readings found in this passage would seem to have been introduced to support the view that a wife could not here be intended.
the brethren of the Lord ] These have been regarded (1) as the children of Joseph and Mary, (2) the children of Joseph by a former wife, (3) as the kinsmen of our Lord, the word brother having been used in Hebrew to denote any near relation. See Gen 13:8; Gen 29:12; Lev 10:4. The question has been hotly debated. (1) or (2) seem the more obvious interpretation of the words; but in support of (3) we find from Scripture and ecclesiastical history that the names of our Lord’s brethren James and Joses and Simon and Judas were also the names of the sons of Alphus, who were our Lord’s cousins. See St Mat 13:55; Mat 27:56; St Luk 24:10; St Joh 19:25. Also St Mat 10:3; St Mar 3:18; St Luk 6:16; and Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. iii. 11, 32. See Professor Lightfoot on the Epistle to the Galatians. Also Professor Plumptre on St James, in the present series.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Have we not power? – Have we not a right? The objection here seems to have been, that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they traveled without wives. The objectors urged that others had wives, and that they took them with them, and expected provision to be made for them as well as for themselves. They therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for their families, and that they were conscious that they were sent of God. But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship, and no right to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right.
To lead about – To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place to place; and to have them maintained at the expense of the churches amongst which we labor.
A sister, a wife – Margin, or woman. This phrase has much perplexed commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, A wife who should be a Christian, and regarded as sustaining the relation of a Christian sister. Probably Paul meant to advert to the fact that the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that it was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would be a Christian; or that he would marry no other; compare 1Co 3:11.
As well as other apostles – It is evident from this that the apostles generally were married. The phrase used here is hoi loipoi apostoloi (the remaining apostles, or the other apostles). And if they were married, it is right and proper for ministers to marry now, whatever the papist may say to the contrary. It is safer to follow the example of the apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the apostles had wives with them on their journeys may have been various. They may have been either to give instruction and counsel to those of their own sex to whom the apostles could not have access, or to minister to the needs of their husbands as they traveled. It is to be remembered that they traveled among pagans; they had no acquaintance and no friends there; they therefore took with them their female friends and wives to minister to them, and sustain them in sickness, trial, etc. Paul says that he and Barnabas had a right to do this; but they had not used this right because they chose rather to make the gospel without charge 1Co 9:18, and that thus they judged they could do more good. It follows from this:
(1) That it is right for ministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy is contrary to apostolic example.
(2) It is right for missionaries to marry, and to take their wives with them to pagan lands. The apostles were missionaries, and spent their lives in pagan nations as missionaries do now, and there may be as good reasons for missionaries marrying now as there were then.
(3) Yet there are people, like Paul, who can do more good without being married. There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable that they should marry, and there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the unmarried state for a missionary as preferable and advisable. Probably the same is to be said of most missionaries at the present day, that they could do more good if unmarried, than they can if burdened with the cares of families.
And as the brethren of the Lord – The brothers of the Lord Jesus, James and Joses, and Simon and Judas, Mat 13:55. It seems from this, that although at first they did not believe in him Joh 7:5, and had regarded him as disgraced Mar 3:21, yet that they had subsequently become converted, and were employed as ministers and evangelists. It is evident also from this statement that they were married, and were attended with their wives in their travels.
And Cephas – Peter; see the note at Joh 1:42. This proves:
(1) As well as the declaration in Mat 8:14, that Peter had been married.
(2) That he had a wife after he became an apostle, and while engaged in the work of the ministry.
(3) That his wife accompanied him in his travels.
(4) That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be married now.
Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter, the pope of Rome, should forbid marriage when Peter himself was married? Is it not a proof how little the papacy regards the Bible, and the example and authority of those from whom it pretends to derive its power? And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness everywhere, should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the Christian world? And is it not strange that this, with all the other corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted to be imposed on the enlightened people of the United States, or of Great Britain, as a part of the religion of Christ?
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife] The word is to be understood here, as above in 1Co 9:4, as implying authority or right; and authority, not merely derived from their office, but from Him who gave them that office; from the constitution of nature; and from universal propriety or the fitness of things.
When the apostle speaks of leading about a sister, a wife, he means first, that he and all other apostles, and consequently all ministers of the Gospel, had a right to marry. For it appears that our Lord’s brethren James and Jude were married; and we have infallible evidence that Peter was a married man, not only from this verse, but from Mt 8:14, where his mother-in-law is mentioned as being cured by our Lord of a fever.
And secondly, we find that their wives were persons of the same faith; for less can never be implied in the word sister. This is a decisive proof against the papistical celibacy of the clergy: and as to their attempts to evade the force of this text by saying that the apostles had holy women who attended them, and ministered to them in their peregrinations, there is no proof of it; nor could they have suffered either young women or other men’s wives to have accompanied them in this way without giving the most palpable occasion of scandal. And Clemens Alexandrinus has particularly remarked that the apostles carried their wives about with them, “not as wives, but as sisters, that they might minister to those who were mistresses of families; that so the doctrine of the Lord might without reprehension or evil suspicion enter into the apartments of the women.” And in giving his finished picture of his Gnostic, or perfect Christian, he says: , , – , He eats, and drinks, and marries – having the apostles for his example. Vid. Clem. Alex. Strom., lib. vii., c. 12.
On the propriety and excellence of marriage, and its superiority to celibacy, see the notes on chap. 7.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife? Those that by those terms, , , understand, not (as we translate it) a sister, a wife, but a woman, that should out of her estate have contributed to the apostles maintenance, (as Joanna the wife of Chuza Herods steward, and Susanna, and many others, followed Christ, and ministered to him of their substance, Luk 8:3), seem not to consider:
1. That such women would have been no burden, but a help to the church (which is quite contrary to the apostles sense).
2. That the term lead about, imports a conjugal relation to the woman.
3. That if this had been the sense, it had been enough to have said, to lead about a woman; he should not need have said, a sister, a woman.
4. That such leading about a woman, not their wife, had been scandalous.
5. That the very phrase, a sister, a wife, answers the phrase, Act 23:1, Men, brethren, which signifies no more than, O ye Christian men; as a sister, a wife, signifies here a Christian wife.
6. That we no where read, that Peter, James, John, Judas, (here called the brethren of the Lord), or any of the other apostles, ever in their travels carried about with them any such rich matrons, not their wives, who (as those, Luk 8:3) ministered to them of their substance. Our interpreters have therefore justly translated it, a sister, a wife; and the sense is: Have I not power to marry? Yet the phrase teaches us two things:
a) That Christians have no power, that is, no lawful power, to marry such as are no Christians, their wives must be their sisters also in Christ.
b) That husbands and wives ought to be undivided companions one to another.
As well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas: he instanceth in several apostles that were married, Peter, (called Cephas), James, John, and Judas the son of Alpheus, Christs kinsmen. Whence we may observe, that ministers may lawfully marry, no law of God hath restrained them more than others. The popish doctrine forbidding to marry, is by the apostle determined to be a doctrine of devils, 1Ti 4:1,3.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. lead about a sister, a wifethatis, “a sister as a wife“; “a sister” byfaith, which makes all believers brethren and sisters in the onefamily of God: “a wife” by marriage covenant. Paul implieshe did not exercise his undoubted right to marry and “leadabout” a believer, for the sake of Christian expediency, as wellto save the Church the expense of maintaining her in his widecircuits, as also that he might give himself more undistractedly tobuilding up the Church of Christ (1Co 7:26;1Co 7:32; 1Co 7:35).Contrast the Corinthians’ want of self-sacrifice in the exercise oftheir “liberty” at the cost of destroying, instead ofedifying, the Church (1Co 8:9,Margin; 1Co8:10-13).
as other apostlesimplyingthat some of them had availed themselves of the power which they allhad, of marrying. We know from Mt8:14, that Cephas (Peter) was a married man. A confutation ofPeter’s self-styled followers, the Romanists, who exclude the clergyfrom marriage. CLEMENT OFALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies,7.63] records a tradition that he encouraged his wife when being ledto death by saying, “Remember, my dear one, the Lord.”Compare EUSEBIUS[Eccleiastical History, 3.30].
brethren of the Lordheldin especial esteem on account of their relationship to Jesus (Act 1:14;Gal 1:9). James, Joses, Simon,and Judas. Probably cousins of Jesus: as cousins were termedby the Jews “brethren.” ALFORDmakes them literally brothers of Jesus by Joseph and Mary.
Cephasprobably singledout as being a name carrying weight with one partisan section atCorinth. “If your favorite leader does so, surely so may I”(1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife,…. The phrase “a sister, a wife”, is an Hebraism, and answers to
, “my sister, spouse”, So 4:9. The Jews called their wives, sisters, not on account of religion, which also is not the meaning here; but because of the common relation that men and women, all mankind, stand in to one another, antecedent to any nearer relation, as that of man and wife. The sense the Papists put on these words, to secure them from being a proof of the lawfulness of the marriage of the ministers of the Gospel, can by no means be the true one; which is, that they are to be understood of a rich woman, or women, the apostles had a power to carry about with them, to minister of their substance to them, and provide for them; for such a sense is directly contrary to the subject and argument the apostle is upon; which is to show the right that he and others had, of casting themselves entirely upon the churches for a maintenance; whereas this is contriving a way for relieving the churches of such a charge; besides, the act of “leading”, or carrying “about”, is expressive of such a power over them, as cannot be thought to agree with persons of such substance; and whose voluntary act this must be, to go along with them and supply them; add to this, that for the apostles to lead about with them wherever they went women, whether rich or poor, that were not their wives, would be of no good report, and must tend to hurt their character and reputation: moreover, though these words clearly imply the lawfulness of a minister’s marriage, and suppose it, yet they do not express the act itself, or the lawfulness of entering into such a state, but rather what follows after it; and the sense is this, that the apostle and others, supposing them to have wives, and it may be added also, and children, they had a right to take these with them wherever they went, and insist upon the maintenance of them, as well as of their own, at the public expense:
as well as other apostles; who it seems did so, that had wives and families, as Philip the Evangelist had four daughters, Ac 21:8.
And as the brethren of the Lord: who it seems were married persons, and took such a method; by whom are meant James, Joses, Judas, and Simon; who were the near kinsmen of Christ, it being usual with the Jews to call such brethren:
and Cephas; that is, Peter, who it is certain had a wife; see Mt 8:14 and therefore it is with a very ill grace that the pope, who pretends to be Peter’s successor, should forbid the marriage of ecclesiastical persons.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Have we no right? ( ;). Same idiom.
To lead about a wife that is a believer? ( ;). Old verb , intransitive in Ac 13:11. Two substantives in apposition, a sister a wife, a common Greek idiom. This is a plea for the support of the preacher’s wife and children. Plainly Paul has no wife at this time.
And Cephas ( ). Why is he singled out by name? Perhaps because of his prominence and because of the use of his name in the divisions in Corinth (1:12). It was well known that Peter was married (Mt 8:14). Paul mentions James by name in Ga 1:19 as one of the Lord’s brothers. All the other apostles were either married or had the right to be.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
A sister, a wife. Wrong Sister means a christian woman, a fellow – member of the Church, as Rom 16:1; 1Co 7:15; Jas 2:15. It is in apposition with wife : A wife that is a sister on believer. So Rev. Such an one has also the right, like her husband, to be maintained by the Church. Some of the fathers claimed that not a wife was meant, but a female attendant, serviens mantrona, who contributed to the maintenance of the apostles as certain women ministered to Christ. There is no foundation for this. It is contradicted by the example of Peter cited at the end of this verse; compare Mt 8:14; and besides, the point of the argument is that these companions should be maintained. Such a practice, however, did grow up in the Church, but was abolished by the Council of Nicaea on account of its abuses. Stanley remarks that the fact of these women accompanying their husbands, may be explained by the necessity of females to gain access to and to baptize the female converts in Greece and in oriental countries; the same necessity which gave rise to the order of deaconesses.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) Have we not power” (me ouk echomen eksousian) “Do we not have or hold (the) right or authority” – by virtue of their calling and services rendered to the Lord Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31.
2) To lead about a sister, a wife. (adelphen gunaika periagein) “to lead about a sister-wife (a Christian wife)?” It is as if Paul were affirming “we do.” If not, why not? Marriage, Christian marriage, is honorable to all, including the ministry, Heb 13:4.
3) As well as other apostles.” (hos kai oi loipoi apostoloi) “As even, or also, or well as the remaining apostles?” The term (Greek loipoi) means “remaining ones” or additional apostles. Paul was thus unashamedly with (on par with) the other apostles – the twelve.
4) And as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (kai hoi adphoi to kuriou kai kephas?) This certifies that the mature brethren of our Lord and the apostle Peter had wives. It also reflects the error of any religion that teaches the minister must remain unmarried to serve God most acceptably. Mat 8:14; Luk 4:38-39.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. Even as the other Apostles. In addition to the Lord’s permission, he mentions the common practice of others. And with the view 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, “Nay, even the brethren of the Lord themselves also make use of it without hesitation — nay more, Peter himself, to whom the first place is assigned by consent of all, allows himself the same liberty.” By the brethren of the Lord, he means John and James, who were accounted pillars, as he states elsewhere. (Gal 2:9.) And, agreeably to what is customary in Scripture, he gives the name of brethren to those who were connected with Him by relationship.
Now, if any one should think to establish Popery from this, he would act a ridiculous part. We confess that Peter was acknowledged as first among the Apostles, as it is necessary that in every society there should always be some one to preside 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 that excel in the gifts of God’s grace. That preeminence, however, was not lordship — nay more, it had nothing resembling lordship. For while he was eminent among the others, still he was subject to them as his colleagues. Farther, it is one thing to have pre-eminence in one Church, and quite another, to claim for one’s self a kingdom or dominion over the whole world. But indeed, even though we should concede everything as to Peter, what has this to do with the Pope? For as Matthias succeeded Judas, (Act 1:26,) so some Judas might succeed Peter. Nay more, 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 one whit better than Judas. This, however, is not the place to treat of these points. Consult my Institutes. (Volume 3.)
One thing farther must here be noticed, that the Apostles had no horror of marriage, which the Papal clergy so much abominate, as unbecoming the sanctity of their order. But it was after their time that that admirable discovery was made, that the priests of the Lord are polluted if they have intercourse with their lawful wives; and, at length matters came to such a pitch, 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 contrived a refined subtilty to effect their escape; for they say that the Apostles gave up the use of the marriage bed, but led about their wives with them, that they might receive the fruits of the gospel, or, in other words, support at the public expense. As if they could not have been maintained by the Churches, unless they wandered about from place to place; and farther, as if it were a likely thing that they would run hither and thither of their own accord, and without any necessity, in order that they might live in idleness at the public expense! For as to the explanation given by Ambrose, as referring to other persons’ wives, who followed the Apostles for the purpose of hearing their doctrine, it is exceedingly forced.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) To lead about a sister, a wifei.e., to take with us on our journeys a Christian woman as a wife. Roman divines have interpreted this as referring to the custom of Christian matrons attending as sisters upon the Apostles. But as the Apostle illustrates his meaning by a reference to Peter, who we know had a wife, such an interpretation is inadmissible. St. Paul, in this verse, carries his statement of apostolic right to support one step further. Not only had he a right to be supported himself, but the support of the married Apostles and their wives by the Church implied the same right on the part of all. A practice which grew out of a misapprehension of the real meaning of this passage, led to grave scandal, and was finally condemned by the first Council of Nica (A.D. 325).
The brethren of the Lord, and Cephas.These are mentioned specially, not as distinct from the Apostles (for Cephas, of course, was one), but as examples which would have great weight with the particular Jewish faction to whom this argument was adduced. James was Bishop of Jerusalem (Act. 15:13; Act. 21:18). The other brethren of our Lord were Joses, Simon, and Judas (Mat. 13:55). They were not of the twelve Apostles, even after their conversion being mentioned as distinct from the Twelve (Act. 1:14), although James subsequently occupied an apostolic position (Gal. 2:9). Various and ingenious suggestions have been made as to who these brethren of the Lord were; amongst others, that they were cousins, or that they were children of Joseph by a former marriage. These views grew out of a desire to establish the perpetual virginity of Mary. The natural conclusion from a study of the mention of their names in the Gospels, without preconceived prejudice, would be that Joseph and Mary lived together after the miraculous birth of Christ, and that these were their children. This, too, is supported by the use of the word first-born in reference to our Lord (Mat. 1:25; Luk. 2:7), and the word till (Mat. 1:25), and before they came together (Mat. 1:18), and the repeated mention of them as brethren in connection with His mother Mary. (See Note on Mat. 12:46.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Lead about Implying an itinerancy, not a settled pastorate.
A sister, a wife A sister of the Church, who is a wife of the apostle. The English version gives the exact verbal Greek, except that the latter word may signify either wife or woman. That here, however, the word does not mean woman is plain, for a sister is of course a woman, and the latter word would be superfluous. If sister express a relation, so must the latter term. Dr. Wordsworth, however, renders it, as do some of the Greek and Roman fathers, a Christian woman. But the word sister alone would express that meaning. Wordsworth’s rendering assumes that the apostles took upon their circuits female attendants of suitable character, who should perform those Christian offices, such as baptism for females, who were in that age inaccessible to the male minister. But of this practice there is no trace in the New Testament or earliest Church history. Nor is the case of those women who upon occasions ministered to our Lord at all parallel. This erroneous view of the text was probably the occasion of the later introduction into the Church of an order of women called after this passage , which led to such immoralities that it was abolished by the Council of Nicea. The Rhemish (Romanistic) version unscrupulously transposes the terms, and reads a woman, a sister, which would give the same sense as Wordsworth, liable to the same objection. Tradition (which Romanism usually presses upon us as a binding authority) asserts, as this passage also implies, that several of the apostles were married, and Mat 8:14 asserts that Peter (claimed as the first pope) was. Paul declares that “a bishop must be the husband of one wife.” When Orientalism became more fully developed in the Church, about the middle of the second century, virginity began to become an exaggerated virtue. As the popedom developed itself, the celibacy of the clergy, contrary to the above quoted express Scripture, was found to be a powerful aid to the central despotism. Separated from all other ties, the clergy became, as now, the devotees of absolute ecclesiastic power. Hence the pope has been the most violent advocate of celibacy, and the late enactment of the infallibility of the pope renders the dogma of clerical celibacy absolutely immutable.
The brethren of the Lord Who were not of the twelve apostles, but who, after the Lord’s resurrection, became apostolic men. See note on Mat 13:55.
Cephas Mentioned here specially as the high authority with the Judaizers whom Paul is answering.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 9:5. To lead about a sister, a wife It is very improbable that the Apostle would have carried about with him, in these sacred peregrinations, a woman to whom he was not married; so that the answer which the Papists generally make to the argument often brought from these words in favour of a married clergy, is absolutely inconclusive. The disjuncture between the Apostles and the brethren of the Lord, is a proof that James bishop of Jerusalem, and Jude, our Lord’s brethren, were not of the number of the Apostles. The last clause of this verse, And Cephas, is important; both as it declares in effect that St. Peter continued to live with his wife after he became an Apostle, and also that St. Peter had no rights as an Apostle, which were not common to St. Paul.A remark utterly subversive of popery, if traced to its obvious consequences. See Locke, Doddridge, and Wall.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Ver. 5. To lead about a sister ] At the Church’s charge likewise. The Papists that deny the lawfulness of ministers’ marriage, are condemned and cursed by their own canon law (Distinct 29 and 31.) See Acts and Monuments, fol. 1008. Paphnutius opposed this proposition in the Nicene Council, and prevailed.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. ] Have we not the power to bring about with us (also to be maintained at the cost of the churches, for this , and not the power to marry, is here the matter in question) as a wife, a (believing) sister (or, ‘ to bring with us a believing wife :’ these are the only renderings of which the words are legitimately capable. Augustine, De Opere Monachorum, 4 (5), vol. vi. p. 552, explains it thus: “Ostendit sibi licere quod ceteris Apostolis, id est ut non operetur manibus suis, sed ex Evangelio vivat:. ad hoc enim et fideles mulieres habentes terrenam substantiam ibant cum eis, et ministrabant eis de substantia sua,” &c., and similarly Jerome adv. Jovin. 1Co 1:26 , vol. ii. p. 277. So likewise Tertull., Theodoret, cum., Isid [37] Pelus., Theophylact, Ambrose, and Sedul [38] So too Corn.-a-Lap. and Estius. See Estius, and Suicer, , II. And from this misunderstanding of the passage grew up a great abuse, and such women are mentioned with reprobation by Epiphan. Hr. 78, vol. i. (ii. Migne), p. 1043, under the name of . They were also called : and were forbidden under the name of by the 3rd Canon of the 1st Council of Nica. See these words in Suicer), as also the other Apostles (in the wider sense, not only the twelve, for 1Co 9:6 , Barnabas is mentioned. It does not follow hence that all the other Apostles were married : but that all had the power , and some had used it ) and the brethren of the Lord (mentioned not because distinct from the , though they were absolutely distinct from the Twelve , see Act 1:14 , but as a further specification of the most renowned persons , who travelled as missionaries, and took their wives with them. On the . . see note, Mat 13:55 . They were in all probability the actual brethren of our Lord by the same mother, the sons of Joseph and Mary. The most noted of these was James, the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19 ; Gal 2:9 ; Gal 2:12 , compare Act 12:17 ; Act 15:13 ; Act 21:18 ), the resident bishop of the Church at Jerusalem: the others known to us by name were Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, see note on Matt, ib.), and Cephas (Peter was married, see Mat 8:14 . A beautiful tradition exists of his encouraging his wife who was led to death, by saying , , , Clem [39] Alex. Strom. vii. 11 (63), p. 868 P. Euseb. H. E. iii. 30. Clem [40] Alex. Strom, iii. 6 (52), p. 535 P., relates that he had children)? On a mistake which has been made respecting St. Paul’s (supposed) wife, see note on ch. 1Co 7:8 .
[37] Isidore of Pelusium, 412
[38] Sedul ius , 430
[39] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194
[40] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
a sister a wife. i.e. a wife who is a believer, and so entitled to be provided for, as well as her husband.
other = the rest of the. App-124.
brethren. See App-182.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] Have we not the power to bring about with us (also to be maintained at the cost of the churches, for this, and not the power to marry, is here the matter in question) as a wife, a (believing) sister (or, to bring with us a believing wife: these are the only renderings of which the words are legitimately capable. Augustine, De Opere Monachorum, 4 (5), vol. vi. p. 552, explains it thus: Ostendit sibi licere quod ceteris Apostolis, id est ut non operetur manibus suis, sed ex Evangelio vivat:. ad hoc enim et fideles mulieres habentes terrenam substantiam ibant cum eis, et ministrabant eis de substantia sua, &c., and similarly Jerome adv. Jovin. 1Co 1:26, vol. ii. p. 277. So likewise Tertull., Theodoret, cum., Isid[37] Pelus., Theophylact, Ambrose, and Sedul[38] So too Corn.-a-Lap. and Estius. See Estius, and Suicer, , II. And from this misunderstanding of the passage grew up a great abuse, and such women are mentioned with reprobation by Epiphan. Hr. 78, vol. i. (ii. Migne), p. 1043, under the name of . They were also called : and were forbidden under the name of by the 3rd Canon of the 1st Council of Nica. See these words in Suicer), as also the other Apostles (in the wider sense, not only the twelve, for 1Co 9:6, Barnabas is mentioned. It does not follow hence that all the other Apostles were married: but that all had the power, and some had used it) and the brethren of the Lord (mentioned not because distinct from the , though they were absolutely distinct from the Twelve, see Act 1:14,-but as a further specification of the most renowned persons, who travelled as missionaries, and took their wives with them. On the . . see note, Mat 13:55. They were in all probability the actual brethren of our Lord by the same mother, the sons of Joseph and Mary. The most noted of these was James, the Lords brother (Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:12, compare Act 12:17; Act 15:13; Act 21:18), the resident bishop of the Church at Jerusalem: the others known to us by name were Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas, see note on Matt, ib.), and Cephas (Peter was married, see Mat 8:14. A beautiful tradition exists of his encouraging his wife who was led to death, by saying , , , Clem[39] Alex. Strom. vii. 11 (63), p. 868 P. Euseb. H. E. iii. 30. Clem[40] Alex. Strom, iii. 6 (52), p. 535 P., relates that he had children)? On a mistake which has been made respecting St. Pauls (supposed) wife, see note on ch. 1Co 7:8.
[37] Isidore of Pelusium, 412
[38] Sedulius, 430
[39] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194
[40] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 9:5. , a sister, a wife) Expressed in the nominative case this is the proposition implied, this sister is my wife; wherefore the name, sister, does not prevent marriage.-, to lead about) an abbreviated expression[73] for to have and to lead about; for he had no wife. Expense was laid upon the Churches, not from having, but from leading about a wife.-, as well as) this word also refers to 1Co 9:4.- , the others) The article shows that all the others had done so. We may presume the same of John.- , and the brethren of the Lord) Act 1:14; Gal 1:19.- , and Cephas) There is a gradation here; comp. 1Co 3:22, note.
[73] See Appendix, locutio concisa.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 9:5
1Co 9:5
Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, -[He answered those who called in question his apostleship, on the ground that he had no wife neither did he receive a support from those among whom he labored, by informing them that, while he and Barnabas had the right to do so, they did not avail themselves of these privileges as a matter of choice.]
even as the rest of the apostles,-These had wives who accompanied them in their work, and he and Barnabas had the same right. [This passage certainly leads to the conclusion that most of the apostles, if not all, were married men; that all had the privilege of having themselves and their wives maintained by the churches.]
and the brethren of the Lord,- [The brethren of the Lord were James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas. (Mat 13:55). Various and ingenious suppositions have been made as to who these were. Some have endeavored to prove that they were the cousins of Jesus; others that they were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage. These views have been fostered by those who have endeavored to establish the perpetual virginity of Mary. But the natural conclusion from a study of what is said in the Gospels, without preconceived prejudice, would be that Joseph and Mary lived together as husband and wife after the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, and that these sons were born unto them. This conclusion is supported by the use of the words: She brought forth her firstborn son (Luk 2:7); And knew her not till she had brought forth a son (Mat 1:25); before they came together (Mat 1:18); and the repeated mention of them in connection with his mother Mary (Mat 12:46; Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3).]
and Cephas?-[This statement and the account of Jesus healing Peters mother-in-law (Mat 8:14; Mar 1:30; Luk 4:38) is conclusive proof that he was a married man.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
sister
a wife who is a sister.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
to lead: 1Ti 3:2, 1Ti 4:3, Tit 1:6, Heb 13:4
a sister: 1Co 7:15, 1Co 7:39, Son 4:9, Son 4:10, Son 4:12, Son 5:1, Son 5:2, Rom 16:1, 1Ti 5:2
wife: or, woman
the brethren: Mat 12:46-50, Mat 13:55, Mar 6:3, Luk 6:15, Joh 2:12, Act 1:14, Gal 1:19
Cephas: 1Co 1:12, Mat 8:14, Mar 1:30, Joh 1:42
Reciprocal: Mat 12:50 – and sister Mat 19:12 – which have Mar 3:16 – Simon Mar 3:18 – James Mar 15:40 – Mary the Luk 4:38 – he Luk 8:20 – thy brethren Act 5:4 – was it not thine Act 14:4 – apostles Act 14:14 – the apostles 1Co 7:7 – I would 1Co 15:5 – Cephas 1Ti 5:17 – be Rev 22:14 – may have
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 9:5. Paul means he has the right to do so at the expense of the church, as well as to obtain his own food from it. He abstained from marriage voluntarily, but insists that had he chosen to do so, he would have the right to marry and have his wife travel with him at the expense of the church. His stipulation that his wife would be a sister (in Christ) is a strong recommendation that even the first marriage of Christians should be with one in the faith. As an approved example of his right in this matter, he cites that of other apostles including Cephas (Peter).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 9:5. Have we no right to lead aboutto take along with us in our missionary journeys
a wife who is a believerGr. a sister. An absurd interpretation of these words, which found support even among the best of the fathers, when once the ascetic principle had taken possession of the Church, led Christians to regard celibacy as a holier state than marriage, and by degrees threw discredit on the marriage of the clergy. The interpretation we refer to is, that the apostle is here claiming the right of preachers to follow our Lords example (Luk 8:1-3), who allowed rich women to follow Him and His apostles, ministering to them of their substance. But on that view, what is this about a wife? For to translate it a woman here is absurd. But absurd as it is, modern Romanistseven Cornelius Lapide and Estiusare obliged to take refuge in it. In fact, the great fluctuation in the Greek readings of this verseespecially that strange reading sisters, womenis a proof (as has been well observed) of the desperate shifts to which people have been driven to obliterate the testimony against compulsory celibacy in the ministers of Christ which the true text of this verse contains.
even as the rest of the apostlesnot necessarily each of them, but the class; for Paul himself was certainly not married (1Co 7:7).
and the brethren of the Lord. Though named hereafter the apostles, it would not necessarily follow that none of these were themselves apostles, for Cephas, one of the apostles, is named immediately after them. At the same time, the mode of expression more naturally suits with their not being apostles, as on other grounds we believe can be established.
and Cephaswhose marriage none can doubt of (see Mar 1:30).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 5. The right of Paul and Barnabas, as apostles of the Lord, is demonstrated down to 1Co 9:14 by a series of arguments, the first of which, 1Co 9:5-6, is taken from the example of the other apostles and of the Lord’s brothers. Not only were these personally maintained by the Churches they visited, but each of them had his wife with him, who shared in this advantage. The Greek text signifies: a sister as wife. The Vulgate translates: a wife as sister; it is obvious in what interest. Clement of Alexandria, at the end of the second century, makes no difficulty about recognising the fact that all the apostles were married (Strom. iii. p. 448); Ambrosiaster (probably the Roman deacon Hilary in the fourth century) declares (2Co 11:2) that all the apostles, except John and Paul, had wives (see Heinrici, p. 240).
The term , to lead about, can apply only to habitual missionary journeys. This little word dissipates to some extent the obscurity in which the book of Acts leaves the career of most of the Twelve. It reveals to us also what an important part the brothers of Jesus played in the early propagation of Christianity. They must have occupied the first rank among the evangelists, who came immediately after the apostles (Eph 4:11). These brothers of Jesus were, according to the Gospels, four in number: James, Joses, Simon, and Jude (Mat 13:55 and parallels). An ancient tradition makes them elder brothers of Jesus, the issue of a first marriage of Joseph. Later it was sought to identify two or even three of them with the apostles of the same name; they were held to be cousins of Jesus, sons of a brother of Joseph, called Alphaeus. After his death, Joseph and Mary took them into their house to bring them up with Jesus; this is what led to their being called His brothers. The eldest, James, was the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus (Mat 10:3); Simon, the last but one, was the Apostle Simon Zelotes (Mat 10:4; Luk 6:15); and the youngest, Jude, was the Apostle Jude Lebbaeus, or Thaddaeus (Mat 10:3; Luk 6:16). This ingenious combination falls to pieces before the two sayings, Joh 7:5, where, some months before the Passion, it is said of the brothers of Jesus, that they did not believe in Him,they were not therefore of the number of the Twelve,and Act 1:13-14, where, even after the Ascension, they are still placed outside the circle of the apostles. Our passage, too, has been relied on to identify them with the Twelve. For, it is said, since Peter is mentioned along with the apostles, though he was one of them, it may well be so with the brothers of Jesus. But it is not necessary to give to the two , and, in our verse an identical meaning. We may explain it: the other apostles, as well as (first ) the brothers of Jesus, and specially (second ) Cephas. As to the brothers of Jesus, therefore, there are only two suppositions possible: either that they were, according to a tradition already quoted, brothers of Jesus by the father, or that they were his later-born brothers. It is well known what an ascendancy in the Church was given to the eldest of them, James, by the fact of his being the Lord’s brother; comp. Gal 1:19; Gal 2:1-10; Acts 15.
The Gospels positively inform us that Peter was married (Mat 8:14). Tradition calls his wife sometimes Concordia, sometimes Perpetua. Peter is expressly mentioned, because he occupied the first rank among the apostles and evangelists; his was the example par excellence.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Have we no right to lead about [in our constant journeyings] a wife that is a believer [i. e., a lawful wife; it was unlawful to marry an unbeliever– 2Co 6:14-16], even as the rest of the apostles [this passage creates a fair presumption that at least the majority of the apostles were married], and the brethren of the Lord [For their names see Mat 13:55 . For their relation to Jesus, see “Fourfold Gospel,” pp. 119, 224-226], and Cephas? [This apostle was married (Mat 8:14); yet Catholics claim him as the first pope. If all these apostles were allowed maintenance for themselves and their wives, Paul had equal right to demand that the church support his wife had he chosen to marry.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 5
The brethren of the Lord. They are mentioned as disciples in Acts 1:14.–Cephas; Peter.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:5 Have we not power to lead about a {e} sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
(e) One that is a Christian and a true believer.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Evidently it was customary for the other apostles and the Lord’s physical brothers to take their wives with them when they traveled to minister. The churches they served covered the expenses of these women as well as those of their husbands. Paul may have mentioned Peter in particular because he had a strong following in Corinth (1Co 1:12). His references to the Lord’s brothers in this verse and to Barnabas in the next do not necessarily mean that these men had visited Corinth. Perhaps the Corinthians knew about their habits of ministering second-hand.