1 Corinthians Chapter 9

The Rights of an Apostle

A. Paul declares his rights as an apostle.

1. (1 Corinthians 9:1-2) Paul defends his status as an apostle.
“Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.”

Paul begins this section with a series of rhetorical questions designed both to affirm his authority and to confront the Corinthians’ doubts about him. The context flows naturally from chapter 8, where he exhorted the Corinthians to willingly limit their personal liberties for the sake of weaker brethren. He now turns to his own example, showing how he himself had voluntarily laid aside legitimate rights that were his by virtue of being an apostle. This sets the stage for his appeal: just as he has restrained himself from insisting upon his apostolic privileges, so also should they restrain themselves from using their “right” to eat food sacrificed to idols if it causes harm to a weaker brother.

Paul first asks, “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free?” His apostleship was not in doubt by divine measure, though some in Corinth were questioning it. To be an apostle meant being personally chosen and commissioned by Christ. Paul emphasizes his spiritual freedom—he is not bound by human structures of authority, but accountable to Christ alone. Other believers were under apostolic authority, but Paul himself was directly under the command of the risen Lord.

He then reminds them of his decisive qualification: “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” This was more than a visionary experience; Paul encountered the risen, glorified Christ personally on the Damascus Road, as recorded in Acts 9:3-6 and retold in Acts 26:12-18. This appearance was a physical, post-resurrection manifestation of Christ, which validated Paul’s apostleship in the same way the Twelve were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. Many today claim visions or experiences and present themselves as apostles, but Paul makes clear that true apostleship required direct commissioning by the risen Christ. His calling was unique, sovereignly given by God, and not something that could be claimed lightly.

Paul also appeals to the undeniable fruit of his ministry: “Are you not my work in the Lord?” The Corinthian believers themselves were living proof of his genuine apostleship. The establishment of the church in Corinth, birthed through his preaching, discipleship, and sacrificial labor, stood as a visible testimony to his divine commission. He goes further, saying, “If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” In other words, even if others questioned his apostolic authority, the Corinthians of all people should not. They had personally witnessed his labor, his preaching, his miracles, and his pastoral investment in them. Their very existence as a Christian church served as a seal—a mark of authenticity—that validated his apostleship.

This is deeply ironic, for of all people, the Corinthians should have been the last to doubt him. Paul had planted the seed of the gospel among them, discipled them, and continued to shepherd them through letters and visits. Yet some in Corinth, swayed by factions and arrogance, questioned his legitimacy. Paul exposes this inconsistency by forcing them to acknowledge that their spiritual life itself was inseparably tied to his labor in the Lord.

At the heart of this passage is a timeless lesson: authority in ministry is not self-declared but Christ-given, and it is authenticated by both divine calling and the fruit of faithful labor. Paul’s apostleship was sealed not merely by a title but by transformed lives. The Corinthians themselves were the evidence that God had indeed chosen and sent Paul as a true apostle of Jesus Christ.

2. (1 Corinthians 9:3-6) Paul’s assertion of rights as an apostle.

“My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?”

Paul continues his argument by laying out his rights in the manner of a courtroom defense. The word “defense” (Greek apologia) and the word “examine” (anakrino) are both legal terms drawn from the Roman judicial system. Paul portrays himself as if standing trial, being cross-examined by critics within the Corinthian church who questioned his legitimacy. Although he had already demonstrated his apostolic credentials in verses 1-2, here he presses the point that his office carries certain rights and privileges.

Paul begins with the most basic example: “Do we have no right to eat and drink?” By this, he does not mean simply the right to consume food and water, which was never in dispute. Rather, he refers to the right to be supported by the churches he served. Apostles and ministers, according to God’s design, were entitled to material support from those who benefited from their spiritual labors. This principle is consistent with Christ’s own teaching in Luke 10:7, “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.” Paul reminds the Corinthians that he had this same right, though he chose not to insist upon it for their sake.

He continues: “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” This expands the principle. Paul was not only entitled to personal support but also the right to have a family sustained with him in ministry. Evidently, most of the apostles were married, and their wives traveled with them as they carried out the work of the gospel. This specifically included Peter, here called Cephas, whose marriage is confirmed in Matthew 8:14: “Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.” Peter’s marriage directly contradicts the later Roman Catholic practice of mandatory celibacy for priests and the papacy. Paul’s point is clear: if other apostles had the right to bring their wives along and receive support for them as well, why would his right be any different?

Paul then adds, “Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?” This rhetorical question reveals the irony of the Corinthians’ attitude. Paul and Barnabas were unique among the apostles in choosing to forgo financial support from the churches. They labored with their own hands, working in trades such as tentmaking (Acts 18:3), so that no one could accuse them of preaching for financial gain. Instead of elevating their credibility, this voluntary sacrifice ironically led some to question whether they were true apostles at all. The Corinthians reasoned that if Paul were a genuine apostle, the churches would insist on supporting him. Since he chose not to demand it, some wrongly concluded that his apostleship was inferior or questionable.

The tragic irony here is that Paul’s greatest act of self-denial, undertaken to remove obstacles to the gospel, was interpreted as weakness by those who were spiritually immature. This attitude reveals how carnally minded the Corinthians were, esteeming status, honor, and material provision as marks of legitimacy, while failing to recognize that true spiritual authority is demonstrated in humility, sacrifice, and faithfulness.

In summary, Paul asserts that he had every right to material support and marital companionship in his ministry, just as the other apostles did. Yet, he and Barnabas voluntarily chose to lay aside these rights for the sake of the gospel. This sets the foundation for the larger argument of the chapter: though a Christian may have legitimate rights, it is often to God’s glory and the benefit of others that those rights be willingly surrendered.

3. (1 Corinthians 9:7-14) Why Paul has the right to be supported by those he ministers to.

“Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.’ Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.”

Paul provides a multi-layered defense for the principle that ministers of the gospel have the right to material support from those they serve. He begins with illustrations drawn from everyday life. “Who ever goes to war at his own expense?” No soldier finances his own battles; armies provide for the men who fight. Likewise, “Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?” Farmers and shepherds naturally receive sustenance from their labor. By appealing to such common-sense analogies, Paul demonstrates that it should not be considered strange or improper for a minister to receive support from those to whom he ministers.

Yet Paul is careful to show that this principle is not based merely on human reasoning. He asks, “Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also?” To validate his claim, Paul appeals to the authority of Scripture. He cites Deuteronomy 25:4: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” In its immediate context, this command was given to protect the laboring animal from cruel treatment while working the threshing floor. However, Paul draws out the broader principle embedded in the law: if even an ox should be allowed to benefit from its labor, how much more should those who labor in the spiritual harvest of God’s people receive support? Paul is not denying the literal application of the law to animals but insists that its greater application points toward the responsibility of God’s people to provide for those who serve them in the Word.

Paul then clarifies, “Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written.” Here he establishes that the law about oxen contains a transcendent principle meant to guide human relationships. Just as the plowman plows in hope and the thresher works in hope of partaking in the harvest, so also should ministers labor with the assurance of being cared for by those they serve. To deny this would be to strip them of encouragement and hope, leaving them feeling abused or disregarded. God’s Word affirms that hope must undergird labor.

Paul drives the point home: “If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?” The implication is plain. Spiritual labor, which deals with eternal matters of salvation and sanctification, far surpasses material goods in value. If the Corinthians had benefited spiritually from Paul’s ministry, it was only right that he should have been supported materially in return. This principle echoes Galatians 6:6, “Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.”

Yet Paul highlights the irony: “If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?” The Corinthians had apparently extended support to other ministers but withheld it from Paul. This inconsistency revealed both their spiritual immaturity and their lack of discernment. They had benefited from Paul’s foundational work as their spiritual father, yet treated him with less honor than others.

Despite his rightful claim, Paul adds with great humility: “Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ.” Here the apostle reveals his heart. His highest concern was not his personal comfort or recognition, but the advance of the gospel. If accepting support from the Corinthians would give them occasion to accuse him of selfish motives or hinder the effectiveness of his witness, Paul would gladly forfeit his right. This principle shows the balance of Christian liberty: though rights may exist, love for others and devotion to Christ’s glory must govern how those rights are exercised.

Finally, Paul appeals to both temple practice and the teaching of Christ Himself. “Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar?” Under the Old Covenant, priests lived from the offerings brought to the tabernacle and temple (Numbers 18:8-20; Deuteronomy 18:1-5). This was God’s appointed pattern. Paul then applies this principle directly to the New Covenant: “Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.” Though we do not have a direct quotation of Christ’s words in this exact form, the principle is recorded in Matthew 10:10, “…for a worker is worthy of his food,” and in Luke 10:7, “…for the laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Thus, Paul’s conclusion is comprehensive: gospel ministers have the God-given right to be supported by those they serve. This right is rooted in common sense, affirmed by the Law of Moses, illustrated by temple practice, and commanded by Christ Himself. Yet, Paul’s example demonstrates that even God-given rights may be set aside if their exercise would hinder the work of the gospel.

B. Paul’s desire to leave his rights unclaimed.

1. (1 Corinthians 9:15-18) Paul’s reward: to preach without relying on the support of any man.
“But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.”

Paul’s tone shifts here to a deeply personal explanation of why, though he had every right to be supported, he voluntarily chose not to exercise that right. He declares emphatically, “But I have used none of these things.” Though the principles he just outlined were biblically and logically sound, he himself had chosen not to take advantage of them. His refusal was not a denial of the principle, but a personal decision motivated by love for the gospel and concern for the Corinthians’ spiritual maturity.

He adds, “Nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me.” Paul is not subtly soliciting financial help from the Corinthians by laying out his case. He is not fishing for support but instead teaching them the value of surrendering one’s rights for the sake of others. His goal is not self-advancement but their edification. This is consistent with the larger theme of chapters 8–10, where he is urging them to forego their liberties if those liberties cause others to stumble.

Paul then makes a startling statement: “For it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void.” His “boasting” was not in preaching the gospel itself, for that was a necessity laid upon him by God’s calling. As he says, “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!” Paul was divinely called and compelled to preach. This was not a personal ambition, nor was it something he could choose to ignore without consequence. The very phrase “woe is me” recalls the prophetic burden, a divine compulsion similar to that felt by Jeremiah, who said, “But His word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back, and I could not” (Jeremiah 20:9). Paul could no more cease preaching the gospel than he could cease breathing; it was an imperative laid upon him by Christ Himself on the Damascus Road.

Paul’s true boasting, therefore, was not in preaching but in how he preached. His joy and reward came in the fact that he could present the gospel “without charge.” By refusing financial support, Paul removed every possible suspicion of being a religious opportunist. In the Greco-Roman world, there were countless philosophers, teachers, and religious entrepreneurs who peddled their ideas for personal profit. Paul wanted no association with such practices. By working with his own hands, he distanced himself from the appearance of greed and demonstrated that his motives were pure.

He continues, “For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship.” Paul acknowledges that preaching the gospel is not optional—it is a stewardship entrusted to him by God. However, the manner in which he preaches provides opportunity for reward. If he preaches willingly and sacrificially, setting aside his rights, then his labor bears the added testimony of sincerity and devotion. His reward is not financial gain, but the joy of knowing he has faithfully discharged his stewardship without hindrance to the gospel.

Finally, Paul summarizes with a rhetorical question: “What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.” His reward is the privilege of offering the gospel freely, unobstructed by financial suspicion. To “abuse” his authority would be to leverage it for personal gain, a charge Paul’s enemies might easily have leveled against him had he accepted financial support. By refusing it, he disarmed his critics and safeguarded the integrity of his ministry.

This passage drives home the principle that while ministers of the gospel have the God-given right to receive support, the higher calling is the glory of Christ and the advancement of His gospel. For Paul, that meant relinquishing his right so that the message would go forth unhindered. For modern believers, the application remains the same: we must ask ourselves what rights, liberties, or comforts we are willing to sacrifice for the sake of Christ and the edification of His church.

2. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) Paul’s flexibility in ministry.

“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”

Paul begins by affirming, “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more.” Though he was under no obligation to any man, he willingly enslaved himself to the needs of others for the sake of the gospel. His freedom in Christ did not lead him to self-indulgence, but to greater servanthood. This principle echoes Galatians 5:13, “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” Paul models that true Christian liberty finds its highest expression in voluntary service, not in self-assertion.

He then illustrates how this servanthood worked out in practice. “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews.” Although Paul was no longer bound to the Mosaic law for righteousness, he willingly adapted Jewish customs when ministering among Jews, in order not to erect unnecessary barriers. This was not hypocrisy or compromise, but strategic flexibility. In Acts 21:23-26, he submitted to Jewish purification rites in Jerusalem, not because they were required for salvation, but to remove obstacles to Jewish evangelism. Likewise, in Acts 16:3, he circumcised Timothy, who had a Jewish mother and Greek father, so that their ministry among the Jews would not be hindered. Paul was consistent, not in ritual practice, but in his singular goal: that he might win people to Christ.

Next, Paul says, “To those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law.” This refers to Jews and Jewish proselytes who strictly adhered to Mosaic regulations. Paul, though not under obligation to the law for his justification, would accommodate Jewish sensibilities when needed. At the same time, he clarifies, “To those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law.” This refers to Gentiles who did not live under the Mosaic law. When ministering among them, Paul did not impose Jewish customs. Instead, he entered their cultural setting without compromising his obedience to Christ. He makes it clear that he was not “lawless”; he was under the higher law of Christ, which fulfills the law’s righteous requirement (Romans 8:4).

Paul further explains, “To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak.” Here he likely refers to those with tender consciences or scruples, such as believers who struggled with eating food offered to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8:7-13). Rather than flaunt his liberty, Paul gladly restricted himself for their sake, so that they would not stumble. His example demonstrates that spiritual maturity expresses itself in restraint for the sake of love, not in parading liberty.

He then summarizes with one of the most striking statements of his ministry philosophy: “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” Paul’s adaptability was never about changing the gospel message, which remained the same (see 1 Corinthians 1:22-23). Instead, it was about changing his method of approach, his manner of life, and his cultural posture in order to remove unnecessary obstacles. He did not dilute truth, but he willingly laid aside personal preferences, traditions, and rights to maximize gospel impact.

Commentators rightly caution us here. Paul was not endorsing compromise or the “accommodationist” model of changing doctrine to suit people. His goal was not money, honor, or popularity, but souls. As Adam Clarke observed, “It was not to get ease but to increase his labors. It was not to save his life, but rather that it should be a sacrifice for the good of immortal souls.” Paul’s adaptability was rooted in sacrifice, not convenience.

Finally, Paul concludes, “Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.” His motivation was singular: the progress of the gospel. He was willing to offend people if necessary over the truth of Christ, but he would never let secondary matters become a stumbling block. His life was shaped by the reality that the gospel must go forth unhindered, and his reward was to share in its blessings together with those he brought to Christ.

3. (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) Paul’s attitude: an athlete’s attitude.

“Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.”

Paul closes this chapter with a vivid athletic metaphor, one that would have resonated deeply with his Corinthian audience. The city of Corinth was home to the Isthmian Games, second in prestige only to the Olympic Games of Greece. Sporting competitions were not mere recreation but celebrated cultural events, and Paul frequently drew upon them as illustrations of spiritual discipline, perseverance, and reward. Across his letters, he employed imagery from running, boxing, wrestling, chariot racing, and the awarding of crowns, showing that spiritual life requires both endurance and strategy.

Paul begins, “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.” The Christian life is likened to a race. Everyone is in the race, but not everyone runs with the determination to win. Paul is not suggesting that salvation itself is a competition—eternal life is a gift of grace through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). Rather, he is speaking of the believer’s pursuit of reward and eternal commendation at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). The exhortation is clear: do not run aimlessly or halfheartedly. Run with focus, with discipline, and with the goal of obtaining the prize.

He continues, “And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things.” Athletes in the ancient games were required to undergo ten months of rigorous training, living under strict discipline in diet, exercise, and habits. They denied themselves many pleasures, not because those pleasures were sinful, but because they hindered peak performance. Paul applies this principle spiritually. Believers must be temperate—self-controlled and disciplined—in order to pursue the imperishable crown. This may mean abstaining from things that are lawful but not helpful (compare 1 Corinthians 6:12). Just as an athlete lays aside legitimate comforts to gain a fading wreath of victory, Christians must discipline themselves for the sake of eternal reward.

Paul contrasts the rewards of earthly competition with spiritual reward: “Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.” The victors of the Isthmian Games were crowned with a wreath made of pine or celery leaves, which quickly withered. How much more should believers labor for an incorruptible crown—an eternal reward that will never fade, reserved for the faithful at Christ’s coming (1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10).

Paul explains his approach: “Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air.” He does not run aimlessly or without purpose, nor does he fight like a boxer swinging wildly without landing a blow. His life and ministry were marked by intentionality. Every step, every effort, was directed toward the eternal goal of pleasing Christ. The Christian life is not casual wandering but deliberate pursuit, guided by the Spirit and shaped by God’s Word.

He continues, “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection.” The word translated “discipline” literally means to strike under the eye, to give a black eye. Paul is not advocating self-mutilation but vivid metaphorical language for rigorous self-control. The body, with its appetites and impulses, must not dominate the believer’s life. Instead, the inner man, governed by the Spirit of God, must keep the body in submission. Paul does not view the body as evil—it is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). However, it must be disciplined lest sinful desires take mastery.

Throughout church history, some misapplied this verse, leading to ascetic practices such as self-flagellation, believing they could atone for sin by punishing the body. But Paul never suggests that. Christ alone paid the full penalty of sin on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). The discipline Paul describes is not self-punishment but Spirit-led mastery, ensuring that the body serves the purposes of God rather than enslaving the believer to fleshly passions.

Paul concludes with a sobering thought: “Lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.” Here Paul likens himself to the herald of the games, whose role was to announce the rules, display the prizes, and crown the victor. Yet even the herald could be disqualified if he did not abide by the rules of competition. Paul feared not the loss of his salvation—eternal life in Christ is secure (John 10:28-29)—but the loss of reward and approval at the judgment seat of Christ. To be “disqualified” (Greek adokimos) means to be set aside as unfit for the prize, rejected by the Judge as one who failed to compete according to the rules (2 Timothy 2:5). Paul longed to finish his race faithfully, to fight the good fight, and to receive the crown of righteousness which the Lord has promised to all who love His appearing (2 Timothy 4:7-8).