Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 9:4
Have we not power to eat and to drink?
4. Have we not power to eat and to drink? ] i.e. at the expense of the Church, cf. St Luk 10:7. This privilege, said St Paul’s opponents, was confined to the original twelve Apostles of the Lord.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Have we not power – ( exousian) Have we not the right. The word power here is evidently used in the sense of right (compare Joh 1:12, margin); and the apostle means to say that though they had not exercised this right by demanding a maintenance, yet it was not because they were conscious that they had no such right, but because they chose to forego it for wise and important purposes.
To eat and to drink – To be maintained at the expense of those among whom we labor. Have we not a right to demand that they shall yield us a proper support? By the interrogative form of the statement, Paul intends more strongly to affirm that they had such a right. The interrogative mode is often adopted to express the strongest affirmation. The objection here urged seems to have been this, You, Paul and Barnabas, labor with your own hands. Act 18:3. Other religious teachers lay claim to maintenance, and are supported without personal labor. This is the case with pagan and Jewish priests, and with Christian teachers among us. You must be conscious, therefore, that you are not apostles, and that you have no claim or right to support. To this the answer of Paul is, We admit that we labor with our own hands. But your inference does not follow. It is not because we have not a right to such support, and it is not because we are conscious that we have no such claim, but it is for a higher purpose. It is because it will do good if we should not urge this right, and enforce this claim. That they had such a right, Paul proves at length in the subsequent part of the chapter.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. Have we not power to eat and to drink?] Have we not authority, or right, , to expect sustenance, while we are labouring for your salvation? Meat and drink, the necessaries, not the superfluities, of life, were what those primitive messengers of Christ required; it was just that they who laboured in the Gospel should live by the Gospel; they did not wish to make a fortune, or accumulate wealth; a living was all they desired. It was probably in reference to the same moderate and reasonable desire that the provision made for the clergy in this country was called a living; and their work for which they got this living was called the cure of souls. Whether we derive the word cure from cura, care, as signifying that the care of all the souls in a particular parish or place devolves on the minister, who is to instruct them in the things of salvation, and lead them to heaven; or whether we consider the term as implying that the souls in that district are in a state of spiritual disease, and the minister is a spiritual physician, to whom the cure of these souls is intrusted; still we must consider that such a labourer is worthy of his hire; and he that preaches the Gospel should live by the Gospel.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Could I not eat and drink of such things offered to idols as well as you? Have not I as great a knowledge, and as much liberty? Yet, you see, I forbear. But the generality of interpreters rather incline to interpret it by what followeth: then, though it be here shortly expressed, and more fully opened afterward, yet the sense is: Have not I power to ask a maintenance of you, by which I should be enabled to eat and drink?
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. Have we not powerGreek,“right,” or lawful power, equivalent to “liberty”claimed by the Corinthians (1Co8:9). The “we” includes with himself his colleagues inthe apostleship. The Greek interrogative expresses, “Yousurely won’t say (will you?) that we have not the poweror right,” c.
eat and drinkwithoutlaboring with our hands (1Co 9:111Co 9:13; 1Co 9:14).Paul’s not exercising this right was made a plea by his opponents forinsinuating that he was himself conscious he was no true apostle (2Co12:13-16).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Have we not power to eat and to drink?] Having proved his apostleship, he proceeds to establish his right to a maintenance as a Gospel minister; which he expresses by various phrases, and confirms by divers arguments: by a “power to eat and drink”, he does not mean the common power and right of mankind to perform such actions, which everyone has, provided he acts temperately, and to the glory of God; nor a liberty of eating and drinking things indifferent, or which were prohibited under the ceremonial law; but a comfortable livelihood at the public charge, or at the expense of the persons to whom he ministered; and he seems to have in view the words of Christ, Lu 10:7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Have we no right? ( ;). Literary plural here though singular in 1-3. The in this double negative expects the answer “No” while goes with the verb . “Do we fail to have the right?” Cf. Ro 10:18f. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1173).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Eat – drink. At the expense of the churches. Compare Luk 10:7.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Have we not power? ( me ouk echomen eksousian?) “Have we not a right or authority?)” If Paul and his missionary companions were of Divine commission, then they merited material or financial help, he contended. See Mat 21:23-27.
2) To eat and to drink? (phagein kai pein?) “to eat and to drink regularly? or repeatedly?” Based on the eternal premise and axiom that “the workman is worthy of support in his labors” or being fed for his labors, Paul rhetorically answers those who questioned the right to be fed and clothed by those to whom they rendered spiritual service, teaching, and guidance, Gal 6:6. As servants of God and guests of the Corinth church they did, Mar 6:10; Luk 10:5-7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. Have we not power ? He concludes from what has been already said, that he had a right to receive food and clothing from them, (482) for Paul ate and drank, but not at the expense of the Church. This, then, was one liberty that he dispensed with. The other was, that he had not a wife — to be maintained, also, at the public expense. Eusebius infers from these words that Paul was married, but had left his wife somewhere, that she might not be a burden to the Churches, but there is no foundation for this, for he might bring forward this, even though unmarried. In honoring a Christian wife with the name of sister, he intimates, first of all, by this, how firm and lovely ought to be the connection between a pious pair, being held by a double tie. Farther he hints at the same time what modesty and honorable conduct ought to subsist between them. Hence, too, we may infer, how very far marriage is from being unsuitable to the ministers of the Church. I pass over the fact, that the Apostles made use of it, as to whose example we shall have occasion to speak ere long, but Paul here teaches, in general terms, what is allowable for all.
(482) “ Combion qu’il n’en air pus use;” — “Though he had not made use of it.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) Have we not power . . .?This follows 1 Corinthians 6 after the parenthetical argument contained in 1Co. 9:2-3. Having established his right to be called an Apostle by the fact that he had seen the Lord, and had been instrumental in their conversion, he now in the same interrogative style asserts his rights as an Apostle. The use of the plural we carries on the thought that he is claiming this right as being one of the Apostlesall of whom have, as Apostles, such a right. The form in which the question is asked implies, Surely we have this right. This verse, taken in connection with 1Co. 8:9, where the same word in the Greek, liberty, occurs in connection with eating, shows how this line of thought has grown out of the preceding subject. The question there, however, was that of eating meat offered to idols; the question here is the right to eat and drink (i.e., live) at the expense of the Church (Luk. 10:7).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Power Rightful authority. The change from the I of the previous verses to the we of this doubtless anticipates the mention of Barnabas, 1Co 9:6, as included in the question.
Eat drink Of the contributions of the Church.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 9:4 f. Returning from the digression in 1Co 9:2-3 , Paul begins a new series of questions , with the view of now making good the prerogative arising out of his apostleship , which in point of fact he declined to exercise.
] i.e. we surely are not destitute of the right to lead, etc.? Comp Rom 10:18 ; 1Co 11:22 . The plural cannot be restricted in its reference to Paul alone , seeing that it has just been preceded, and is again followed in 1Co 9:6 , by the singular , but must imply that the apostle is thinking both of himself and of whosoever else acts in like manner . More particularly, 1Co 9:6 shows that he has here in his eye, not his companions in labour generally (Hofmann), but Barnabas in particular besides himself (for see the in 1Co 9:6 ), and him only . It may be added, that Calovius is right in saying, against the abuse of this passage in the interests of monasticism, that Paul is not speaking here of what “ semper et ubique vitari oporteat sed de eo tantum quod in casu noxii scandali infirmorum fratrum vitandum est.”
. ] i.e. at the cost of the churches . To understand it of non-observance of the Jewish laws about food (Hunnius, Heydenreich, Billroth, comp Olshausen), or of sacrificial flesh and wine (Schrader), is contrary to the context. See 1Co 9:6 ff. The right of eating and drinking , in the sense in which the reader would naturally understand it as an apostolic prerogative (Luk 10:7 ), required nothing to be added to define it. The analogy of Mat 11:19 (Hofmann) has no bearing on the clause before us, the point of view there being that of asceticism .
The infinitives are exegetical, and need no (Mat 9:6 ; Mar 2:10 , al [1410] ).
. . ] to lead about (along with me on my official journeys) a sister (a female believer) as a wife . The view taken by several of the Fathers (see Aug. de op. Monach. iv. 5, Jerome, in Theodoret, Theophylact; comp generally, Suicer, Thes. I. p. 810), that a serviens matrona is meant (so also Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, and Estius), is against the plain meaning of the words, without shadow of historical support in the life of the apostle, supposes a somewhat unseemly relation, and is contrary to the example of Peter, Mat 8:14 . [1412] It has, however, been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly insufficient grounds. On , comp Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 28; it occurs oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mem. i. 7. 2; Polyb. xx. 5. 8.
. .] It does not follow from this that all the other apostles were married, but the majority of them must have been so, otherwise the phrase, which must be meant to hold at least a potiori , would be unsuitable.
] Now, the brethren of the Lord are in Act 1:14 expressly distinguished from the Twelve; further, in Gal 1:19 , James, the Lord’s brother, is equally distinguished from those who were apostles in the narrower and original sense (such as Peter); and further still, we have no trace in any of the lists of the apostles (Mat 10:2 f.; Mar 3:16 f.; Luk 6:14 f.) that there were “brethren of the Lord” among the Twelve, a supposition which would also be decidedly at variance with Joh 7:3 ; Mar 3:21 . The , therefore, should not be put on a level with Cephas (Hofmann), and sought within the number of the Twelve, but are the actual brothers of Jesus, not His half-brothers merely (sons of Joseph by a former marriage), but His uterine brothers, later-born sons of Joseph and Mary (Mat 1:25 ; Luk 2:7 ; Mat 12:46 ; Mat 13:55 ), who had become believers and entered upon apostolic work after the resurrection of Jesus (1Co 15:7 ; Act 1:14 ), and among whom James, in particular, as president of the church in Jerusalem (Act 15:13 ; Act 21:18 ), had obtained a high apostolic position (Gal 2:9 ). see on Act 12:17 ; Gal 1:19 . This view (which is held also by de Wette, Billroth, Rckert, Osiander, Neander, and Ewald, among the more recent expositors of the passage before us) runs counter to what was formerly the common view, namely, that of Jerome, which still prevails with Roman Catholics, and is supported by Hengstenberg and others, that the phrase denotes the sons of Christ’s mother’s sister , so that James, the Lord’s brother, would be identical with the son of Alphaeus (but see on Joh 19:25 ), and would bear the name of “brother of the Lord” ( in the wider sense) as a title of honour from his near relationship to Jesus. Comp on Mat 12:46 . In like manner Lange, in his apost. Zeitalter , p. 189, understands the Alphaeidae to be meant; they were, he holds, the adopted brothers of Jesus, Joseph having adopted as his own the children of Alphaeus, who was his brother , after the latter’s death. All this is nothing but arbitrary imagination, resting simply upon the false assumption that Mary brought forth Jesus, not as her first -born (Mat 1:25 ; Luk 2:7 ), but as her only child. Lange is wrong here in making the a proof that the brethren of the Lord were among the Twelve, and are but singled out from their number in this verse for special mention. What Paul says is rather: “as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord;” and then, having set before us this august circle formed by the Twelve and those brethren of the Lord closely associated with them since the resurrection of Jesus (Act 1:14 ), in which, too, he himself, as an apostle, had an equal place, he singles out in conclusion the most illustrious of them all, one who was looked upon as the head of the whole circle (Gal 1:18 ), by adding: “ and , i.e. and, to mention him in particular by name, Cephas ;” so that it is only the last , and not the second as well (as Hofmann, too, maintains), that carries the force of special distinction (Fritzsche, a [1415] Marc. p. 11); comp Mar 16:7 .
The design of the whole question, . . . . ., has no bearing upon scruples (of the Christ-party) as to marriage being allowed (Olshausen), but is closely connected with the purport of the first question, as is plain from : “Am I denied, then, the right to live at the cost of the churches, and to have, like the other apostles, etc., a consort journeying along with me from place to place?” in which latter case a similar support from the churches is, from the nature of the circumstances, and from the scope of the context (1Co 9:4 ; 1Co 9:6 ), manifestly assumed as a matter of course.
Peter’s wife is called by tradition sometimes Concordia , sometimes Perpetua . See Grabe, Spicil. Patr. I. p. 330.
[1410] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1412] Valla perceived rightly “fuisse apostolos suas uxores comitatas,” but thinks that they were called sisters , “quod tanquam non uxores jam erant.” An “ elegans argutia ” (Calvin)!
[1415] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
Ver. 4. To eat and to drink ] At the Church’s charge; so that we do it moderately without excess, as Josiah did, and it went well with him, Jer 22:15 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] He resumes the questions which had been interrupted by giving the proof of his Apostleship.
. ] asks the question : is the thing in question : Is it so, that we have not power. ? The plur. seems to apply to Paul alone : for though Barnabas is introduced momentarily in 1Co 9:6 , there can be no reference to him in 1Co 9:11 . It may perhaps be used as pointing out a matter of right , which any would have had on the same conditions (see 1Co 9:11 ), and as thus not belonging personally to Paul, as do the things predicated in 1Co 9:1-2 ; 1Co 9:15 . This however will not apply to 1Co 9:12 , where the emphatic is personal.
. ] To eat and to drink , sc. at the cost of the churches : not with any reference to the eating of things offered to idols (as Schrader, iv. 132), nor to Jewish distinctions of clean and unclean (as Billroth and Olshausen); see below, 1Co 9:6-7 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 9:4-6 . The rights P. vindicates for himself and his fellow-labourers in the Gospel, are ( a ) the right to maintenance; ( b ) to marriage; ( c ) to release from manual labour . ( a ) ; “Is it that we have not?” ironical question, as in 1Co 11:22 “Of course we have”. P. writes in pl [1282] collegas includens (Bg [1283] ), the suggesting mentioned in the next ver. (later Gr [1284] for ), “right to eat and drink,” sc. as guests of the Church: see Mar 6:10 , Luk 10:7 ; Luk 22:30 . The added , and the illustrations of 1Co 9:7 ; 1Co 9:13 , show that the obj [1285] of the two vbs. is not the idolothyta, but the material provision for Christ’s apostles, supplied by those they serve (1Co 9:11 ); this is analogous to, not parl [1286] with, that of 1Co 8:9 , belonging not to the as such, but to the ; cf. the Didach , 13, “Every true prophet is worthy of his food”. George Fox characteristically notes the moderation of the demand: “The Ap. said ‘Have I not power to eat and to drink?’ But he did not say, ‘to take tithes, Easter reckonings, Midsummer dues, augmentations, and great sums of money’.” , as a verbal noun, governs the bare inf [1287] , like . ( b ) Paul claims, in order to renounce, the the “right to take about (with us) a sister as wife” i.e. , a Christian wife: brachyology for “to have a Christian sister to wife, and take her about with us”. is obj [1288] , objective complement to , on which the stress lies; “non ex habendo, sed ex circumducendo sumtus afferebatur ecclesiis” (Bg [1289] ). The Clementine Vg [1290] rendering, mulierem sororem circumducendi (as though from . .), gives a sense at variance both with grammar and decorum, not to be justified by Luk 8:2 f. This misinterpreted text was used in defence of the scandalous practice of priests and monks keeping as “sisters” , which was condemned by the Nicene Council, and often subsequently; so Jerome (Ep. 23, ad Eustoch. ), “Agapetarum pestis sine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorum novum concubinarum genus” (see Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. vv. , ). From the clause it appears that “the rest of the App.,” generally speaking, were married, and their wives often travelled with them; the “forsaking” of Luk 18:28-30 was not final (in the parl [1291] Mat 19:28 f., Mar 10:28 ff., does not appear); according to tradition, John however was celibate. “The brothers of the Lord” were also orthodox Jews in this respect (on their relationship to Jesus, see Lt [1292] , Essay in Comm [1293] on Galatians); indeed, they came near to founding a kind of Christian dynasty in Jerus. “And Cephas,” separately mentioned as the most eminent instance of the married Christian missionary. The association of the . . with the does not prove that they were counted amongst these, or bore this title of office: while distinguished from the latter by their specific name ( cf. Gal 1:19 ), they are linked with them as persons of like eminence; see the position of James in Acts. ( c ) The third , , Paul and his old comrade Barnabas had laid aside. Barn. had stripped himself of property at Jerus. in the early days (Act 4:36 f.); and he and P. together, in the pioneer mission of Acts 13 f., worked their way as handicraftsmen. Now separated, they both continued this practice, which was exceptional . . The allusion implies wide-spread knowledge of the career of Barn., which ends for us at Act 15:39 . Notwithstanding the in which they parted, the two great missionaries remained in friendly alliance; cf. Paul’s reff. to Mark, Barnabas’ cousin, in Col 4:10 , 2Ti 4:11 . For , as denoting manual labour, see parls.; a cl [1294] usage, like that of Eng. workmen . This third was the negative side of the first ( cf. 1Th 2:9 , also 2Co 11:9 , and of 18 below). The three rights in fact amount to the one which Paul argues for in the sequel: he might justly have imposed his personal support, and that in the more expensive character of a married man, upon the Christian communities for which he laboured, thus sparing himself the disadvantages and hardships of manual toil.
[1282] plural.
[1283] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1284] [1285]
[1286] parallel.
[1287] infinitive mood.
[1288] grammatical object.
[1289] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1290]
[1291] parallel.
[1292] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).
[1293] commentary, commentator.
[1294] classical.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
not. Greek. me ou. The me stands for the question.
power = authority, or right. Greek. exousia. App-172.
to eat, &c. i.e. at the expense of the assembly.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] He resumes the questions which had been interrupted by giving the proof of his Apostleship.
.] asks the question: is the thing in question: Is it so, that we have not power.? The plur. seems to apply to Paul alone: for though Barnabas is introduced momentarily in 1Co 9:6, there can be no reference to him in 1Co 9:11. It may perhaps be used as pointing out a matter of right, which any would have had on the same conditions (see 1Co 9:11), and as thus not belonging personally to Paul, as do the things predicated in 1Co 9:1-2; 1Co 9:15. This however will not apply to 1Co 9:12, where the emphatic is personal.
. ] To eat and to drink, sc. at the cost of the churches: not with any reference to the eating of things offered to idols (as Schrader, iv. 132), nor to Jewish distinctions of clean and unclean (as Billroth and Olshausen);-see below, 1Co 9:6-7.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 9:4. [72] ; have we not?) He comes from the singular to the plural, including his colleagues [in the apostleship].- , to eat and to drink) without labouring with his hands.
[72] , is this) namely, that you are the seal of my office.-V.g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 9:4
1Co 9:4
Have we no right to eat and to drink?-[Having proved his apostleship, he now proves his right to be maintained by those among whom he labored.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
we: 1Co 9:7-14, Mat 10:10, Luk 10:7, Gal 6:6, 1Th 2:6, 2Th 3:8, 2Th 3:9, 1Ti 5:17, 1Ti 5:18
Reciprocal: Lev 22:7 – General Neh 5:14 – I and my Mar 6:3 – James 1Co 4:11 – unto 1Co 9:14 – ordained
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 9:4. Power is from EXOUSIA, which means right or authority. To eat and drink means to do so at the expense of those to whom he preaches. (See verse 14.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 9:4. Have we no right to eat and to drink?at the cost of the churches which we serve.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Paul’s Rights As An Apostle
The church should feed its workers. As an apostle, Paul claimed the right to receive food and drink for his labors. It would seem most of the apostles were married. Paul and Barnabas had a right to support for themselves and a family as much as any other apostle, or one sent by the Lord. Of course, if they had a wife, she must be a believer ( 2Co 6:14-16 ). Even the Lord’s brethren were married ( Mat 8:14 ; Mar 1:30 ; Luk 4:38 .) Paul called Barnabas an apostle because he was “one sent” ( 1Co 9:4-6 ; Act 14:1-4 ; Act 13:2 ; Gal 2:9 ).
Wages are the incentive to faithful workers in any line of work. This was God’s opinion as well as man’s. The apostle quoted Deu 25:4 to show that God even wants working animals to be treated fairly (compare Psa 104:21 ; Psa 27:1-14 ; Psa 28:1-9 ; Psa 29:1-11 ; Psa 30:1-12 ; Psa 147:9 ; Job 38:41 ; Mat 6:26-30 ; Luk 12:24 ). If God cares for animals, he would certainly care for men. Paul used the principle to show that man should pay a fair wage to the laborer for his work. Again, the laborer’s incentive is his reward ( 1Co 9:7-10 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Vv. 4-6. Have we not right to eat and to drink? 5. Have we not right to lead about a sister as wife, as well as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
Paul uses the plural (we have), because he is thinking also of Barnabas, who acted in this respect in the same way as himself (1Co 9:6); perhaps he means also to include Silas and Timothy, who had laboured with him in founding the Church of Corinth, joining him in his mode of living; comp. 1Co 9:11 : If we have sown among you spiritual things…. The terms eat and drink receive from the context this special meaning: to eat and drink at the Church’s expense. The eating of sacrificed meats is no longer in question. The interrogative assumes the negative answer: It is not however () possible that we have not () the right….?
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Have we no right to eat and to drink? [are we not entitled to be fed by the church?]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 4
To eat and to drink; that is, at the charge of the church.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 9:4-6. After proving his apostleship, Paul now begins to prove (1Co 9:4-14) his claim to be supported by the church. He thus introduces the specific matter of 1 Corinthians 9.
Eat and drink: at the cost of the church. For God to give Paul a work which so occupied him that he could not earn (2Co 11:8) sufficient food, and yet to forbid him to be supported by his converts, would be practically to forbid him to eat and drink. Contrast Luk 10:7.
We; includes (1Co 9:6) Barnabas, and perhaps others. Contrast 1Co 9:1-3. The mention of eating, in a matter quite different recalls 1Co 8:13.
As wife: see 1Co 7:2 : to be maintained by the church. To refuse this, would be practically to forbid the apostles to marry.
Lead about: as companion of their apostolic journeys. These words seem to imply that at least Paul was not married: so 1Co 7:8. And the words following imply clearly that most of the apostles and certainly Cephas (cp. Mat 8:14) and the brothers of the Lord were, when Paul wrote, living in married life. The mention here of the brothers of the Lord reveals their important position among the early Christians. Cp. Act 1:14. The mention of Cephas suggests that opponents are referred to here belonging to the Cephas-party. Cp. 2Co 11:22. If so, these words betray their inconsistency. The mention of Barnabas implies that he, Paul’s earliest missionary companion and originally a man of property, (Act 4:37; Act 13:2,) shared the resolve to labor at a trade rather than be maintained by his converts. To refuse Paul’s claim to maintenance, is to make him and Barnabas exceptions to the other apostles. Am I forbidden to eat and drink? To forbid me to be maintained by the church, amounts to this. Do not the other apostles, whose equal I have proved to be, and even Cephas, whose disciples my opponents profess to be, claim maintenance not only for themselves but for their wives? Have I and Barnabas been specially forbidden to desist, even while preaching the Gospel, from manual toil? Estius, (who, however, honestly corrects the order of the words in the papal Vulgate,) following Tertullian, On Monogamy ch. 8, Jerome, Against Jovinian bk. i. 26, Augustine, The work of monks chs. 4, 5, supposes that Paul refers in 1Co 9:5 to Christian ladies who accompanied the apostles in their journeys, and at the cost of themselves or others supplied their wants; and compares Mat 27:55; Mar 15:41; Luk 8:2 f. But this supposition has no historic ground whatever except this verse. For the explanations of this verse by Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine, cannot be accepted as such. The suggested practice would lie open to grave suspicion; especially as Paul speaks of leading about one sister. The entire context shuts out all thought of a lady who at her own cost supplied the apostle’s need. And the added word wife cannot be accounted for except as indicating that the sister in Christ was also a wife.
Act 22:1, a rhetorical appeal with different order of words, is no parallel to the plain language of this verse. That some of the apostles were married, Estius admits.
The brothers of the Lord, will be discussed under Gal 1:19.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
9:4 {4} Have we not power to {d} eat and to drink?
(4) “Now concerning the matter itself”, he says, “seeing that I am free, and truly an apostle, why may not I (I say not, eat of all things offered to idols) be maintained by my labours, indeed and keep my wife also, as the rest of the apostles lawfully do, as by name, John and James, the Lord’s cousins, and Peter himself?”
(d) Upon the expense of the Church?
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Paul used the series of rhetorical questions that begins here to force the Corinthians to recognize-they should already have known-that he possessed full apostolic rights. In view of the other rights that follow, Paul’s reference to eating and drinking here probably means to eat and drink at the expense of others. It means to accept financial support in his ministry.