Have we no right to eat and to drink?
Parallel Translations
-
Have we no right to eat and to drink?
-
Have we not power to eate and to drynke?
-
Haue we not power to eat and to drinke?
Cross-references (8)
Passages linked to 1 Corinthians 9:4 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 1 Thessalonians 2:6 nor seeking glory from men (neither from you nor from others), when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ.
- 2 Thessalonians 3:8-9 neither did we eat bread from anyone’s hand without paying for it, but in labor and travail worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you, not because we don’t have the right, but to make ourselves an example to you, that you should imitate us.
- Luke 10:7 Remain in that same house, eating and drinking the things they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Don’t go from house to house.
- Matthew 10:10 Take no bag for your journey, neither two coats, nor sandals, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food.
- 1 Corinthians 9:7-14 What soldier ever serves at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard, and doesn’t eat of its fruit? Or who feeds a flock, and doesn’t drink from the flock’s milk? Do I speak these things according to the ways of men? Or doesn’t the law also say the same thing? For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it for the oxen that God cares, or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope. If we sowed to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your fleshly things? If others partake of this right over you, don’t we yet more? Nevertheless we didn’t use this right, but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the Good News of Christ. Don’t you know that those who serve around sacred things eat from the things of the temple, and those who wait on the altar have their portion with the altar? Even so the Lord ordained that those who proclaim the Good News should live from the Good News.
- Galatians 6:6 But let him who is taught in the word share all good things with him who teaches.
- 1 Thessalonians 2:9 For you remember, brothers, our labor and travail; for working night and day, that we might not burden any of you, we preached to you the Good News of God.
- 1 Timothy 5:17-18 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain.” And, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (15 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain 4. Have we not power? He concludes from what…
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, 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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Upon the expense of the Church?
Upon the expense of the Church?
Now touching the matter itself, he saith, Seeing that I am free, and truly an Apostle, why may not I (I say not, eat of all things offered to idols) but be maintained by my labors, yea and keep my wife also, as the residue of the apostles lawfully do, as by name, John and James, the Lord’s cousins, and Peter himself?
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 4 Have we not power to eat and to…
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.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Could I not eat and drink of such things…
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?
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Have we not power to lead about a sister,…
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", Sol 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, Act 21:8.
Read full note →
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 Mat 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Have we not power - I and my fellowlabourers.…
Have we not power - I and my fellowlabourers. To eat and to drink - At the expense of those among whom we labour.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 4. Have we not power to eat and…
Verse 4. Have we not power to eat and to drink?] Have we not authority, or right, εξουσιαν, 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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Have we not power - (ἐξουσίαν exousian) Have we…
Have we not power - (ἐξουσίαν 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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain Have we not power--Greek, "right," or lawful power, equivalent…
Have we not power--Greek, "right," or lawful power, equivalent to "liberty" claimed by the Corinthians (Co1 8:9). The "we" includes with himself his colleagues in the apostleship. The Greek interrogative expresses, "You surely won't say (will you?) that we have not the power or right," &c.
eat and drink--without laboring with our hands (Co1 9:11, Co1 9:13-14). Paul's not exercising this right was made a plea by his opponents for insinuating that he was himself conscious he was no true apostle (Co2 12:13-16).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 4. Power—Rightful authority. The change from the I of…
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 4. Have we not power to eat and to…
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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (4) Have we not power . . .?—This follows…
(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 Apostles—all 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).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain To eat and to drink. To be supported by…
To eat and to drink. To be supported by those to whom we preach. (Luk_10:7)
Vers. 4-18.
Read full note →
Ministerial support.
Having vindicated his claim to be reckoned among the apostles of Christ, Paul proceeds to assert his right to a temporal maintenance at the hands of those to whom he ministered. The other apostles received support, not only for themselves, but also for their wives: why should he not make the same claim? Though he was unmarried, and though he had hitherto supported himself by the labour of his own hands, this did not invalidate his right. Consider
I THE RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO A SUITABLE MAINTENANCE. This is upheld by various arguments and analogies, 1. The labourer is worthy of his reward. Three instances are adduced in illustration (ver. 7).
(1) The soldier. The duty of fighting for his country throws the burden of his support upon others. Why should it be otherwise with the Christian soldier? (2Ti_2:4)
(2) The husbandman. His labour is rewarded by the fruit. The minister of the gospel is also a husbandman. (1Co_3:6-9)
(3) The shepherd. Does he not receive the milk of the flock, partly for food and partly for exchange? Why should not the Christian pastor, who tends the flock of Christ, have a similar return? (1Pe_5:2) The principle in these instances is that every occupation in common life yields support to the worker, and that he does not require to go beyond it for daily sustenance. In like manner, the minister of the gospel is entitled to an adequate maintenance without having to resort to secular work to supply his wants.
1. The teaching of the Mosaic Law. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, etc. (ver. 9; Deu_25:4; comp. 1Ti_5:18) What was the meaning of this injunction? It shows, indeed, the care of the Lawgiver for the brute creation, but it is only a particular application of a great principle. The Law has regard for oxen, not for their own sake, but for the sake of him to whom they are in subjection. And if even the labouring ox was to be fed, how much more should the plougher and the thresher work in hope of partaking! The Law of Moses thus confirms the teaching of natural analogy, that the labourer is to be maintained by his work.
2. The fairness of the claim. "If we sowed unto you spiritual things," etc. (ver. 11). In every case the sower expects to reap; but there is more than this in the apostle"s argument. The preacher of the gospel sows spiritual things those great truths that minister to the spirit: is it a great matter if he looks for carnal things in return those things that minister only to the flesh? If he is the instrument, in God"s hand, of saving the souls of his hearers, what amount of gold can be an adequate recognition of the service rendered?
3. Analogy of the Jewish priesthood. (Ver. 13.) The rule was that they who served at the altar should receive a portion of the sacrifices and other gifts that were constantly brought to the temple. A sufficient support was thus secured; and the Divine sanction implied in that ancient rule applies equally to the case of the Christian ministry.
4. The express ordinance of the Lord Christ. (Ver. 14.) When he sent forth his apostles to preach, he said, "Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; for the labourer is worthy of his food". (Mat_10:9, Mat_10:10) This was their marching order. They were to depend on the offerings of the people among whom they laboured; and the reference here shows that this was no temporary arrangement, but that it was intended to be the New Testament rule for preachers of the gospel. Instead of having to turn aside to secular pursuits, they are to be free to give themselves wholly to their work. By these various arguments the apostle establishes the right of ministers to claim support at the hands of the Christian people, and the corresponding duty of the people to contribute that support. Both the right and the duty have been but imperfectly recognized by the Church. This will appear if we consider:
(1) The average rate of ministerial support. Compare this with the incomes of men in the other learned professions or in mercantile pursuits.
(2) The manner in which giving to the cause of Christ is frequently regarded. How many either give with a grudge or do not give at all! The evil resulting is twofold spiritual loss to the individual, and a crippling of the Church in her work. Not until all the tithes are brought into the storehouse will the Lord open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing. (Mal_3:8-10)
II THE RENUNCIATION OF THIS SIGHT. (Vers. 15-18.) Strongly as Paul insists upon his right to temporal maintenance, it is not with a view to urge his claim upon the Corinthians, but to bring into clearer relief his renunciation of it. That he preached the gospel free of charge was to him a matter of boasting which he would rather die than be deprived of. It was no glory to him that he was a preacher; for, as a steward put in trust with the gospel, this was his simple duty. But it was no part of his stewardship to labour without support; and this, accordingly, was a proof of his sincerity in which he was entitled to boast. In this act of self denial he had a reward in making the gospel entirely free, and in securing that on this ground no hindrance should be put in its way (ver. 12). Here some practical considerations emerge.
1. How a minister of the gospel should bear himself towards pecuniary support. There are cases in which he may forego his right, especially where he sees that this renunciation will tend to the advancement of the gospel. Usually, however, it is his duty to accept a stipend at the hands of the Christian people, and that for the reason which led Paul to decline it. To
2. receive a reasonable maintenance is to be in the best position for devoting one"s self entirely to the ministry of the Word. But at all times it should be manifest that the servant of Christ does not act from mercenary motives. The shepherd is not to tend the flock for the sake of the fleece. "Not yours, but you," should be his motto. (2Co_12:14)
3. The obligation to preach the gospel. "Necessity is laid upon me." There is a Divine must in the case of every true preacher, as there was in the case of Jesus. (comp. Mar_8:31; Luk_4:43 Luk_19:5; Joh_3:14) The love of Christ, not less than the command of Christ, constrains him. It is with him as with the prophet: "Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his Name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay". (Jer_20:9)
4. The doctrine of reward. The apostle"s statement regarding the reward he expected for his optional renunciation of support has been adduced by popish divines in support of their doctrine of supererogation; but it will not bear such an application. The distinction he makes is between what was plainly a part of his bounden duty as a steward, and what seemed best for the furtherance of the gospel in his peculiar circumstances. In one sense it was a matter for his own choice whether he should accept a temporal maintenance, but this is not the sense required by the Romish argument. Whatever promises to conduce to the furtherance of Christ"s kingdom, becomes thereby a duty to the apostle; for "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin". (Jam_4:17) There is no actwhich is not included under love to God and love to man. There is no self denial to which the love of Christ should not prompt us. The gospel doctrine of reward does not rest on any theory of supererogation, but rather on the principle that God is pleased to recognize the fidelity of his servants. B.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain Have we no right to eat and to drink?…
Have we no right to eat and to drink? [are we not entitled to be fed by the church?]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 9:4 As an apostle, Paul had the right to…
9:4 As an apostle, Paul had the right to expect food and housing from those to whom he ministered (cp. 9:14; Luke 10:7-8). Nevertheless, to avoid any possible criticism, he did not take advantage of this privilege (see 9:6, 12, 14-15, 18; 2 Cor 11:7-9; 12:13-14).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.