1 Corinthians 9:4

Have we no right to eat and drink? Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?

THE FIRST ARGUMENT

Have we no right ...? is a Hebrew idiom for "We certainly do have the right."

To eat and drink ... means "entitled to be fed by the church."[2] It is incorrect to refer this to eating and drinking in an idol's temple.

Wife that is a believer ... In view here, as Morris noted, is not the rights of apostles to marry; nobody in the first century would have raised any such question; rather, the thing in view is "the right to lead about a wife,"[3] maintaining her (along with her husband) at the church's expense.

The rest of the apostles, and Cephas ... This means that all of the other apostles, and Cephas (Peter) in particular, carried their wives with them on their missionary journeys; and Paul as a true apostle had the same right to do so. Significantly, Peter appears in this passage not as a celibate, but as a family man. It will be recalled that his mother-in-law was healed by Jesus (Matthew 8:14). Thus, it is certain that Peter did not forsake the married state to discharge his apostolic office.

Brethren of the Lord ... These were James, and Joseph, and Simon and Judas (Matthew 13:55); and there is nothing in the New Testament that requires these to be understood in any other way than as the half-brothers of Jesus, the natural children of Joseph and the Virgin Mary, her virginity following the birth of Jesus being nothing but a superstition. For more on Mary's so-called perpetual virginity, see in my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 9-11.

Or I only and Barnabas ... It appears that Barnabas also gave up his right to be supported by the churches. While commendable in the highest degree, this renunciation of the right of support on the part of Paul and Barnabas resulted in their being looked down upon by some who were steeped in the culture of the Greeks. "The philosophers regarded the men who performed menial tasks as inferior."[4] Working with one's hands for his own support was detested by them.

As Metz considered it, so do we, that the "wife" to be carried about as mentioned here could have any possible reference to some woman who was not the wife of the missionary, but a mere female companion or woman assistant, is "morally preposterous."[5] It is a fact, however, that the historic church did so pervert the meaning of this place; and of such perversion Farrar said:

It was the cause of such shameful abuses and misrepresentations that at last the practice of traveling about with unmarried women, who went under the name of "sisters," "beloved," or "companions," was distinctly forbidden by the third canon of the Council of Nice.[6]

Paul's argument is simply that he was as fully entitled to be supported by the churches as were any of the other apostles, a right proved by the general acceptance of it throughout the brotherhood of that day.

[2] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on First Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 89.

[3] Leon Morris, Tyndale Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), p. 133.

[4] Donald S. Metz, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 397.

[5] Ibid., p. 396.

[6] F. W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 19, p. 287.