Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 9:3
Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this ] The Judaizers of whom we hear in the Epistle to the Galatians and in Acts 15, are now heard of here also, and this Epistle seems to have stirred them up to a still stronger antagonism, for St Paul is obliged to travel over the same ground in his second Epistle, and with much greater fulness. St Paul, therefore, though he ‘transferred in a figure to himself and Apollos’ what he had said with reference to the Corinthian teachers, had nevertheless in view also some who disparaged his authority. It is worthy of note that the terms answer and examine in the original are the usual legal expressions (Olshausen), as though the Apostle conceived himself to be on his trial.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mine answer – Greek He eme apologia. My apology; my defense. The same word occurs in Act 22:1; Act 25:16; 2Co 7:11; Phi 1:7, Phi 1:17; 2Ti 4:16; 1Pe 3:15; see the note at Act 22:1. Here it means his answer, or defense against those who sat in judgment on his claims to be an apostle.
To them that do examine me. – To those who inquire of me; or who censure and condemn me as not having any claims to the apostolic office. The word used here anakrino is properly a forensic term, and is usually applied to judges in courts; to those who sit in judgment, and investigate and decide in litigated cases brought before them; Luk 23:14; Act 4:9; Act 12:19; Act 24:8. The apostle here may possibly allude to the arrogance and pride of those who presumed to sit as judges on his qualification for the apostolic office. It is not meant that this answer had been given by Paul before this, but that this was the defense which he had to offer.
Is this – This which follows; the statements which are made in the following verses. In these statements (1Co 9:4-6, etc.) he seems to have designed to take up their objections to his apostolic claims one by one, and to show that they were of no force.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. Mine answer to them] This is my defence against those who examine me. The words are forensic; and the apostle considers himself as brought before a legal tribunal, and questioned so as to be obliged to answer as upon oath. His defence therefore was this, that they were converted to God by his means. This verse belongs to the two preceding verses.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
These words may be understood in a double reference: either to what went before; then the sense is this: To those that examine me about my apostleship, this is my answer; That I have seen the Lord, that you are my work in the Lord, and the seal of my ministry. Or with reference to the words that follow; then the sense is this: If any man examine me, how I myself practise the doctrine which I preach to others, and determine myself as to my liberty for the good and profit of others, I give them the following answer.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. to them that . . . examinemethat is, who call in question mine apostleship.
is thisnamely, thatyou are the seal of mine apostleship.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Mine answer to them that do examine me is this. These words are referred by some to the following, as if the apostle’s answer lay in putting the questions he does in the next verses; but they rather seem to belong to the preceding, and the meaning to be this, that when any persons called in question his apostleship, and examined him upon that head, what he thought fit to say in answer to them, and in defence of himself, was by referring them to the famous church at Corinth, who were as particular persons, and as a church, his work in the Lord, and everyone of them as so many seals of his apostleship; he being the first preacher of the Gospel to them, the founder of them as a church, and the instrument of their conversion.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Rights of a Christian Minister. | A. D. 57. |
3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4 Have we not power to eat and to drink? 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? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? 7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 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? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
Having asserted his apostolical authority, he proceeds to claim the rights belonging to his office, especially that of being maintained by it.
I. These he states, v. 3-6. “My answer to those that do examine me (that is, enquire into my authority, or the reasons of my conduct, if I am an apostle) is this: Have we not power to eat and drink (v. 4), or a right to maintenance? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas; and, not only to be maintained ourselves, but have them maintained also?” Though Paul was at that time single, he had a right to take a wife when he pleased, and to lead her about with him, and expect a maintenance for her, as well as himself, from the churches. Perhaps Barnabas had a wife, as the other apostles certainly had, and led them about with them. For that a wife is here to be understood by the sister-woman~adelphen gynaika, is plain from this, that it would have been utterly unfit for the apostles to have carried about women with them unless they were wives. The word implies that they had power over them, and could require their attendance on them, which none could have over any but wives or servants. Now the apostles, who worked for their bread, do not seem to have been in a capacity to buy or have servants to carry with them. Not to observe that it would have raised suspicion to have carried about even women-servants, and much more other women to whom they were not married, for which the apostles would never give any occasion. The apostle therefore plainly asserts he had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and claim a maintenance for his wife, nay, and his children too, if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to procure it. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to for bear working? v. 6. In short, the apostle here claims a maintenance from the churches, both for him and his. This was due from them, and what he might claim.
II. He proceeds, by several arguments, to prove his claim. 1. From the common practice and expectations of mankind. Those who addict and give themselves up to any way of business in the world expect to live out of it. Soldiers expect to be paid for their service. Husbandmen and shepherds expect to get a livelihood out of their labours. If they plant vineyards, and dress and cultivate them, it is with expectation of fruit; if they feed a flock, it is with the expectation of being fed and clothed by it! Who goeth a warfare at any time at his own charge? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not the milk thereof? v. 7-9. Note, It is very natural, and very reasonable, for ministers to expect a livelihood out of their labours. 2. He argues it out of the Jewish law: Say I these things as a man? Or saith not the law the same also? v. 8. Is this merely a dictate of common reason and according to common usage only? No, it is also consonant to the old law. God had therein ordered that the ox should not be muzzled while he was treading out the corn, nor hindered from eating while he was preparing the corn for man’s use, and treading it out of the ear. But this law was not chiefly given out of God’s regard to oxen, or concern for them, but to teach mankind that all due encouragement should be given to those who are employed by us, or labouring for our good–that the labourers should taste of the fruit of their labours. Those who plough should plough in hope; and those who thresh in hope should be partakers of their hope, v. 10. The law saith this about oxen for our sakes. Note, Those that lay themselves out to do our souls good should not have their mouths muzzled, but have food provided for them. 3. He argues from common equity: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? What they had sown was much better than they expected to reap. They had taught them the way to eternal life, and laboured heartily to put them in possession of it. It was no great matter, surely, while they were giving themselves up to this work, to expect a support of their own temporal life. They had been instruments of conveying to them the greater spiritual blessings; and had they no claim to as great a share in their carnal things as was necessary to subsist them? Note, Those who enjoy spiritual benefits by the ministry of the word should not grudge a maintenance to such as are employed in this work. If they have received a real benefit, one would think they could not grudge them this. What, get so much good by them, and yet grudge to do so little good to them! Is this grateful or equitable? 4. He argues from the maintenance they afforded others: “If others are partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? You allow others this maintenance, and confess their claim just; but who has so just a claim as I from the church of Corinth? Who has given greater evidence of the apostolic mission? Who had laboured so much for your good, or done like service among you?” Note, Ministers should be valued and provided for according to their worth. “Nevertheless,” says the apostle, “we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. We have not insisted on our right, but have rather been in straits to serve the interests of the gospel, and promote the salvation of souls.” He renounced his right, rather than by claiming it he would hinder his success. He denied himself, for fear of giving offence; but asserted his right lest his self-denial should prove prejudicial to the ministry. Note, He is likely to plead most effectually for the rights of others who shows a generous disregard to his own. It is plain, in this case, that justice, and not self-love, is the principle by which he is actuated. 5. He argues from the old Jewish establishment: “Do you not know that those who minister about holy things live of the things of the temple, and those who wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? v. 13. And, if the Jewish priesthood was maintained out of the holy things that were then offered, shall not Christ’s ministers have a maintenance out of their ministry? Is there not as much reason that we should be maintained as they?” He asserts it to be the institution of Christ: “Even so hath the Lord ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel (v. 14), should have a right to a maintenance, though not bound to demand it, and insist upon it.” It is the people’s duty to maintain their minister, by Christ’s appointment, though it be not a duty bound on every minister to call for or accept it. He may waive his right, as Paul did, without being a sinner; but those transgress an appointment of Christ who deny or withhold it. Those who preach the gospel have a right to live by it; and those who attend on their ministry, and yet take no thought about their subsistence, fail very much in their duty to Christ, and respect owing to them.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
My defence ( ). Original sense, not idea of apologizing as we say. See on Acts 22:1; Acts 25:16. Refers to what precedes and to what follows as illustration of 8:13.
To them that examine me ( ). See on 1Cor 2:15; 1Cor 4:3. The critics in Corinth were “investigating” Paul with sharp eyes to find faults. How often the pastor is under the critic’s spy-glass.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Answer [] . See on 1Pe 3:15.
Examine [] . See on Luk 23:14.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Mine answer to them that examine me is this.” (he eme apologia tois eme anakrinousin estin aute) “My defense to those examining, quizzing, or questioning me is this: “Paul did not clam up, remain silent, or acquiesce in fear when one found fault with him or his labors as an apostle, Gal 1:6-24; Php_1:17; reads, “I am set for the defense of the gospel.”
To establish identity and authority is primary in valid administration work, and Paul, like his Lord, validated his call and commission, Joh 8:13-18; Joh 4:33-40.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. My defense. Apart from the principal matter that he has at present in hand, it appears also to have been his intention to beat down, in passing, the calumnies of those who clamored against his call, as if he had been one of the ordinary class of ministers. “I am accustomed,” says he, “to put you forward as my shield, in the event of any one detracting from the honor of my Apostleship.” Hence it follows, that the Corinthians are injurious and inimical to themselves, if they do not acknowledge him as such, for if their faith was a solemn attestation of Paul’s Apostleship, and his defense, against slanderers, the one could not be invalidated without the other falling along with it.
Where others read — those who interrogate me, I have rendered it — those that examine me — for he refers to those who raised a dispute as to his Apostleship. (480) Latin writers, I confess, speak of a criminal being interrogated (481) according to the laws, but the meaning of the word ἀνακρίνειν which Paul makes use of, seemed to me to be brought out better in this way.
(480) “ Ceux qui vouloyent mettre en debat son Apostolat, et le contreroller, comme on dit;” — “Those who were desirous to bring his Apostleship into dispute, and overhale it, as they say.”
(481) The expression is made use of by Suetonius. (Aug. 33.) Reum ita fertur interrogasse . He is said to have interrogated the criminal in such a manner.) — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Mine answer. . . .The verse refers to what has gone before, and not to what follows. That (emphatic) is my answer to those who examine me as to the truth of my Apostleship. Both the words answer and examine are in the Greek the technical terms for a legal defence and examination before a tribunal.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Them that do examine me A judicial term, and may be rendered, my triers. It alludes to a class of Corinthian detractors who are brought into the foreground, and more fully answered in the second epistle.
This Followed by a period, and properly referring to the answer just given, not to what follows. His answer as to the validity of his apostleship is now complete. What follows is to assert that he is free.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘My defence to those who examine me is this. “Have we no right to eat and to drink? Have we no right to lead about a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?’
The word ‘defence’ is fairly strong. There were clearly those who were putting him in a position where he felt he had to make his defence and justify himself, so he asserts his rights as an Apostle. He illustrates his argument from what other Apostles do. They eat and drink at other’s expense as provided by the Lord. So then could he. He has the right to do so as well. They take their wives with them who also receive support, for they too are believers. So then could he. He has the right to. Indeed the same is true of the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter). They all enjoy support from the churches they visit. Do he and Barnabas not then have the same rights? Do they not have a right to ‘live by faith’ rather than working for a living? Are they the only ones to be excepted?
This point may arise as a result of the fact that some were claiming that he worked to support himself precisely because he was not a true Apostle and was not recognised as having the right. Not so, he replies. He and Barnabas had a right to receive support, but they did not claim it lest it be misinterpreted. It was their choice, not the choice or will of the churches.
It is clear that at his stage Paul is well aware of the ministries of the other Apostles and that of Jesus’ brothers. He knows that all are active in the field. Many consider that here he is including the brothers of the Lord as permanent ‘Apostles’. Certainly they had known the Lord in a unique way as an elder brother, so that being now converted they might well have been included in the number (James undoubtedly was). The matter is, however, disputed. But it is certainly clear that they were held in high esteem, almost on the level of Apostles if not actually so.
We in fact know little about the ministries of the other Apostles other than Cephas (Peter) and John, although fairly good tradition links Thomas with India. Otherwise most of what we ‘know’ is unreliable tradition, interesting but not necessarily true.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
Ver. 3. Mine answer to them, &c. ] Or, this is mine apology to those that cavil and quarrel my calling, viz. that I have converted you and others; a real proof, a visible demonstration. So 2Co 13:3-5 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3 .] This belongs to the preceding , not to the following verses:
, viz. the fact of your conversion : this word is the predicate, not the subject as in Joh 1:19 ; Joh 17:3 , and stands here in the emphatic place before the verb; referring to what went before. With 1Co 9:4 a new course of questions begins, which furnish no .
. ] For the dat. see Act 19:33 ; 2Co 12:19 : to those, who call me in question : , emphatic, as Chrys. says, of 1Co 9:2 , , , p. 181.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 9:3-7
3My defense to those who examine me is this: 4Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?
1Co 9:3 “My defense” This term (i.e., apologia) was used of a “legal defense” (cf. Act 19:33; Act 22:1; Act 25:16; Php 1:7; Php 1:17; 1Pe 3:15). Syntactically 1Co 9:3 may go with 1Co 9:2 or 1Co 9:4. The USB4, NRSV, and TEV show it to go with 1Co 9:4, while the NKJV and NJB do not break the paragraph at either point.
“to those who examine me” Paul was being criticized by some group or theological faction at Corinth (cf. 1Co 2:15; 1Co 4:3). They were claiming
1. that he was not a true apostle
2. that he changed the Jerusalem apostles’ message
3. that he only preached for money
These charges are not specifically stated, but assumed from the historical setting and from the subjects Paul chose to address.
1Co 9:4 This begins a series of questions (cf. 1Co 9:4-7) where Paul asserts his right as an Apostle to be supported by the local churches. However he personally chose not to exercise his rights (cf. 1Co 9:15; 1Co 9:18; 1Th 2:6), but he affirms the rights of other Christian workers.
1Co 9:5 “to take along. . .even as the rest of the apostles” The context is not directly asserting the right of the Apostles to have wives, although this is surely implied, but the right of the Apostles to have the church support them and their wives.
The term “apostles” can refer to the Twelve or the wider usage of the term (cf. Act 14:4; Act 14:14; Rom 16:6-7; 1Co 4:9; Gal 1:9; Eph 4:11; Php 2:25; 1Th 2:6). Because Peter is named separately, the latter group is implied. It is also possible that a group (i.e., one of the factions) in this church was elevating Peter’s Apostleship (cf. 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22).
NASB, NKJV,
NRSV, NIV”a believing wife”
TEV, NJB,
NEB”a Christian wife”
In Greek there is a double pair of nouns, “a sister, a wife,” which was idiomatic for “a believing wife.” The historical problem is how is this related to
1. the women who accompanied Jesus and the Apostolic group and helped them (cf. Mat 27:55; Mar 15:40-41)
2. the woman discussed in 1Co 7:36-38 (i.e., a daughter or a virgin companion or a fiancee)
3. the ministry of the wives of church leaders similar to deaconesses of Rom 16:1 or the “widows roll” of the Pastorals (cf. 1Ti 3:11; 1Ti 5:9-10)
Probably all of the original Twelve were married because singleness among Jews was very rare. Jews would marry because of the commandment in Gen 1:28; Gen 9:1; Gen 9:7.
“even as the rest of the apostles” The term “apostle” has several connotations in the NT.
1. those who were called by Jesus and followed Him during His earthly life
2. Paul called in a special vision on the road to Damascus
3. an ongoing gift in the church (cf. Eph 4:11), which included several people
The textual issue here is what do we make of Paul’s list.
1. the rest of the apostles
2. the brothers of the Lord
3. Cephas
4. Barnabas and Paul
“the brothers of the Lord” Jerome (A.D. 346-420) believed these were Jesus’ cousins; Epiphanius (A.D. 310-403) said they were children from Joseph’s previous marriage. Both of these interpretations are obviously related to the developing Roman Catholic presuppositions about Mary and not to the NT. Mary had further children after Jesus (cf. Mat 12:26; Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3; Joh 2:12; Joh 7:3; Joh 7:5; Joh 7:10; Act 1:14; Gal 1:19).
It does imply that Jesus’ half brothers, who were active in the church, were considered leadership. As a matter of fact, one of Jesus’ relatives was the leader of the Jerusalem Church for several generations during the first century, starting with James.
“Cephas” This is the Aramaic form of the Greek Petros. It meant a large boulder or rock (cf. Mat 8:14; Joh 1:42). Cephas was married (cf. Mar 1:30).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” in 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 9:5; 1Co 15:5 and Gal 1:18; Gal 2:9. But in Gal 2:7-8; Gal 2:11; Gal 2:14 he calls him Peter. There seems to be no theological distinction, rather, probably literary variety. He is called Peter everywhere in the Gospels except Joh 1:42.
It is interesting that the church has made so much of the connection between Peter (i.e., Petros) and “this rock” (i.e., petra) in Mat 16:18. Jesus spoke Aramaic and there is no distinction at all between the two terms in that language.
1Co 9:6 “Barnabas” Barnabas is also called an apostle, which shows a wider use of the term (cf. Eph 4:11) than simply the initial Twelve (cf. Act 14:14; Act 18:5).
SPECIAL TOPIC: BARNABAS
NASB”not have a right to refrain from working”
NKJV”who have no right to refrain from working”
NRSV”who have no right to refrain from working for a living”
TEV”the only ones who have to work for our living”
NJB”the only ones who have no right to stop working”
The rabbis asserted the dignity of manual labor. All rabbis had to have a secular job because it was considered sinful to receive money for teaching YHWH’s truths (cf. Pirke Abot 1Co 1:13; 1Co 4:7). Paul chose not to take advantage of his rights as a preacher of the gospel (1Co 9:18), possibly because of (1) his Jewish heritage or (2) the attacks of those who claimed he manipulated people for money (cf. Act 20:33; 2Co 11:7-12; 2Co 12:14-18).
1Co 9:7-14 In these verses there are several examples from everyday life used as analogies to show the appropriateness of gospel workers receiving a living wage from the churches they served (cf. Rom 15:27): (1) a soldier, v.7; (2) a vineyard owner, 1Co 9:7; (3) a shepherd, 1Co 9:7; (4) the ox, 1Co 9:9; (5) a plowman and thresher, 1Co 9:10; (6) a sower, 1Co 9:11; and (7) a priest, 1Co 9:13.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
answer = defence. Greek. apologia. See Act 22:1.
examine. App-122.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] This belongs to the preceding, not to the following verses:
, viz. the fact of your conversion: this word is the predicate, not the subject-as in Joh 1:19; Joh 17:3, and stands here in the emphatic place before the verb; referring to what went before. With 1Co 9:4 a new course of questions begins, which furnish no .
.] For the dat. see Act 19:33; 2Co 12:19 :-to those, who call me in question: , emphatic, as Chrys. says, of 1Co 9:2, , , p. 181.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 9:3. ) This is an anaphora with[70] , 1Co 9:2-, a defence [or answer]) The Roman Pontiff, in his desire to be irresponsible, , assumes more to himself.- , to those who debate my case [examine me]) who have any doubt of my apostleship.
[70] See Append. The frequent repetition of the same word in the beginnings of sections.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 9:3
1Co 9:3
My defence to them that examine me is this.-When any of his opponents undertook to question him as to his apostleship, he answered that he had seen the Lord Jesus, and that he had set his seal upon his commission by the success which had crowned his labors. This answer satisfied Peter, James, and John, who gave to him the right hands of fellowship, seeing to him had been committed the apostleship to the Gentiles. (Gal 2:8-9).
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
answer: Act 22:1, Act 25:16, Phi 1:7, Phi 1:17, 2Ti 4:16,*Gr.
them: 1Co 14:37, 2Co 10:7, 2Co 10:8, 2Co 12:16-19, 2Co 13:3, 2Co 13:5, 2Co 13:10
Reciprocal: 1Co 9:1 – I not an
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 9:3. Paul gives an answer to the ones who wanted to examine him, which denotes the examination consisted of questions as to why he did or did not do some things.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 9:3. My defence to them that examine me is thisnot this which I am now to give; for what follows is not an answer to such questioners, but this which I have already stated (in the preceding verses). Accordingly, 1Co 9:3 is to be viewed as closing the subject of his apostleship, so far as any question could be raised about it, although in his Second Epistle he takes it up again.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here the apostle instances in another branch of his Christian liberty, and that was marriage; he could have taken a wife, as Peter and other apostles did, had he pleased, and have put the church to further charges in maintaining himself, a wife, and family, as did others, without blame: and he and Barnabas had power to forbear working for their living, and maintaining themselves with their own labour in tent-making; they had power to ask maintenance of the Corinthians, if they pleased. But they considered the low circumstances which the church was in and under at that time, and continued both in a single state, and wrought with their hands to maintain themselves, when they might have expected maintenance from the church. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife? that is, to marry, if we saw fit.
Hence learn, 1. The lawfulness of the ministers of the gospel marrying, as well as other men: neither the prophets of the Old Testament, nor the apostles of the New, did abhor the marriage-bed, nor judge themselves too pure for an institution of their Maker. The doctrine forbidding marriage to any, (which the apostle says is honourable in all,) is called a doctrine of devils.
Learn, 2. That no Christians, much less ministers, have power, (that is, any lawful power,) to marry such as are no Christians: their wives must be their sisters in Christ, that is, Christian women, at least by external and visible profession.
3. That husband and wife ought to be undivided companions one to another. Have we not power to lead about a wife? that is, to take her with us in our travels and journeyings from place to place, for our comfort and assistance. Husbands and wives are to be mutual companions, sharers in each other’s sorrows, and partakers of one another’s comforts.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 9:3-5. Mine answer My apology; to them that examine and censure me As to this part of my conduct, is this which follows. Have we not power I and my fellow-labourers; to eat and to drink At the expense of those among whom we labour? Does our declining the use of a privilege prove that we have it not? Have we not power to lead about with us In our apostolical travels; a sister, a wife That is, a wife who is a sister in Christ, a believer in him, and truly pious; and to demand sustenance for her also? as well as other apostles Who therefore, it is plain, did this: and Peter? Hence we learn, 1st, That Peter continued to live with his wife after he became an apostle; 2d, That he had no rights, as an apostle, which were not common to Paul. In the eastern countries, when people of condition travelled, they either lodged with their acquaintance, or carried servants with them, who provided such things as were necessary for their accommodation in the public lodging-houses. In the Gentile countries, where the apostles preached, they had no acquaintance or friends with whom they could lodge, and therefore some of them, particularly the brethren of the Lord, and Peter, found it necessary to carry about with them wives to make provision for them, at the expense of those to whom they preached. This right, Paul told the Corinthians, belonged as much to him and to Barnabas as to the other apostles. But to render the gospel free of charge, he neither had used this right, 1Co 9:12, nor ever would use it, 1Co 9:15. Wherever he came he maintained himself by his own labour. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
My defence to them that examine me is this. [This verse refers to what precedes it. It means that when called to defend his apostleship, Paul would point to the presence of a church of his established in Corinth as his answer. A similar answer had satisfied the other apostles (Gal 2:6-10) Thus having proved his apostleship, Paul proceeds to discuss the rights and privileges appurtenant to it.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 3
That do examine me; that call in question my conduct.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:3 {3} Mine answer to them that do {c} examine me is this,
(3) He adds this by the way, as if he should say, “So far it is off, that you may doubt of my apostleship, that I use it to refute those who call it into controversy, by opposing those things which the Lord has done by me among you.”
(c) Which like judges examine me and my doings.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Apostolic rights 9:3-14
The issue of Paul’s right to their material support underlies this whole pericope.
"Philosophers and wandering missionaries in the Greco-Roman world were ’supported’ by four means: fees, patronage, begging, and working. Each of these had both proponents and detractors, who viewed rival forms as not worthy of philosophy." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 399.]
Paul did not begin by justifying his renunciation of his apostolic rights but by establishing that he had these rights. He evidently had to begin there because the Corinthians were challenging these rights. They were assuming that Paul had worked with his hands because he lacked apostolic rights, not because he had chosen to forgo them.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
If anyone challenged his practice of forgoing his rights as an apostle, his response follows.