《Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary – 1 Corinthians (Vol. 2)》(Heinrich Meyer)
09 Chapter 9
Introduction
CHAPTER 9
1 Corinthians 9:1. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ.] So A B א, min(1373), and most of the vss(1374), with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrosiast. Aug. Pelag. Cassiodorus, Bede, Griesb. Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. Elz. inverts the order of the questions, and is defended by Pott, Rinck, Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it was very natural to transfer οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ. to the first place as the more important point, and the one first expounded in detail by the apostle himself (1 Corinthians 9:1-3).—1 Corinthians 9:2. τῆς ἐμῆς] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read μου τῆς, with B א, 17, 31, 46, Or. Rightly; the Recept(1375) is a more precise definition of the meaning inserted in view of 1 Corinthians 9:3. Had ΄ου crept in from the τὸ ἔργον ΄ου in 1 Corinthians 9:1, it would have been put after ἀποστολῆς.—1 Corinthians 9:6. τοῦ] is wanting, it is true, in A B D* F G א, 17, 46, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Rück.; but the omission was very naturally suggested by 1 Corinthians 9:4-5 .—1 Corinthians 9:7. ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read τὸν καρπόν, with A B C* D* F G א *, 17, 46, 137, Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. Vulg. ms. Bede. The Recept(1376) is an alteration in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in meaning.—1 Corinthians 9:8. ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ κ. τ. λ(1377)] There is decisive testimony in favour of ἢ καὶ ὁ νό΄ος ταῦτα οὐ λέγει; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. It was altered because not understood.—1 Corinthians 9:10. ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι τοῦ ΄ετέχειν] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch., with A B C א *, 10, 17, 71, Syr(1378) utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Or. Eus. Cyr. The Recept(1379) again (defended by Reiche) is: τῆς ἑλπίδος αὐτοῦ ΄ετέχειν ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι. Since, however, this ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence against it(1380) that it must be rejected at once; τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν, again, is so plain as regards its meaning, that had it been the original reading it could hardly have given rise to any change. If, on the other hand, it was not observed that we have to supply ἀλοᾶν after ἀλοῶν, the ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι τοῦ ΄ετέχειν remained unintelligible, and τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ was put in as a gloss to obviate the difficulty; then this mistaken gloss in some cases displaced the original words, in others, got mixed up with them (EIz.).—1 Corinthians 9:11. θερίσομεν] C D E F G L, min(1381) Vulg. It. Theodoret, have θερίσωμεν. So Lachm. on the margin. Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text; grammarians took offence at the subjunctive after εἶ.—1 Corinthians 9:13. There is decisive evidence for reading παρεδρ. here with Lachm. Rück. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in 1 Corinthians 9:15 οὐ κέχρη΄αι οὐδενὶ τ., with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch.—1 Corinthians 9:15. ἴνα τὶς κενώσῃ] There is great diversity here. B D* א *, Sahid. Bashm. have οὐδεὶς κενώσει (so Lachm.). A has οὐδεὶς ΄ὴ κενώσει (so Rück.). F G, 26, give us τις κενώσει. The Recept(1382), which is specially defended by Reiche, ἵνα τὶς κενώσῃ, has only a partial support from C D*** E I K א **, the majority of the min(1383) and vss(1384), Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec., because most of these authorities are in favour of κενώσει, which is adopted by Tisch. But the Received reading, as well as the τις κενώσει, seems to be an attempt to amend the original—but not understood—text in B (which A only intensifies), so that we ought to read: ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει. See the exeget. remarks on the verse.—1 Corinthians 9:16. καύχημα] D E F G א *, It.: χάρις. Not strongly enough attested; an old gloss in accordance with Luke 6:32-34. Instead of γάρ after οὐαί, Elz. has δέ, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch., εὐαγγελίσωμαι in place of the second εὐαγγελίζωμαι; the Recept(1385) is a repetition from the first.—1 Corinthians 9:18. Elz. and Scholz have τοῦ χριστοῦ after εὐαγγέλ., in opposition to decisive evidence.—1 Corinthians 9:20. ΄ὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νό΄ον] omitted in Elz., but given by almost all the uncials and many vss(1386) and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton.—1 Corinthians 9:21. The genitives θεοῦ and χριστοῦ (Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have decisive testimony in their favour, as κερδάνω τοὺς ἀν. also has (so Lachm. Rück. Tisch.); the Recept(1387) κερδήσω ἀνό΄ους was formed upon the model of 1 Corinthians 9:20.—1 Corinthians 9:22. The ὡς before ἀσθ. is wanting in A B א *, Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. Cypr. Ambrosiast. Aug. Ambr. Bede. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was a mechanical addition on the plan of the preceding clauses.
The article before πάντα (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority.—1 Corinthians 9:23. τοῦτο] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss(1388) and Fathers, have πάντα; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. τοῦτο is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely; for the same reason Sahid. Arm. read ταῦτα δὲ πάντα.—1 Corinthians 9:27. ὑπωπιάζω] So Elz. Lachm. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (A B C D* א, min(1389) Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings, ὑποπιάζω (F G K L min(1390) Fathers) and ὑποπιέζω (D*** E, min(1391) Fathers), must be rejected even on the ground of external evidence alone, all the more that the vss(1392) castigo (Vulg.), subjicio, macero, affligo, domo, do not show clearly which reading they follow. Notwithstanding, ὑποπιάζω has been defended of late, especially by Matth. (“ πιάζειν loco πιέζειν aliquos male habuit”), Reiche, Hofm., and adopted by Tisch. It appears to have been simply the production of ignorant and mechanical transcribers, who were familiar with πιάζω or πιέζω, but took offence at ὑπω (with ω).
CONTENTS.
That principle of loving self-denial which Paul had just laid down for himself in respect of the single point in question (1 Corinthians 8:13), he now confirms by referring to his general demeanour, of which that one resolve was merely a particular expression, and shows, in a frank, deeply impressive, and striking elucidation, how he, notwithstanding that he was free and an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1-3), yet refrained from pressing his well-grounded right to have himself (and a consort as well) supported by the churches (1 Corinthians 9:4-18), and adapted himself to the needs of all men (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). His readers, therefore, should be like champions at the games in striving for the everlasting crown, preparing themselves to this end through the exercise of self-control, even as he too sought, by self-renunciation, to become worthy of the prize (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). Not until chap. 10 does he come back from this digression to the special topic (of the sacrificial flesh) with which it stands connected. It is not of the nature of an apology as regards its whole plan and design, but only incidentally so in some isolated references (1 Corinthians 9:2-3; 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 9:12).
Verse 1
1 Corinthians 9:1. The first two questions bring out the fact that he was seemingly exalted far above any such consideration and renunciation on his own part as he had announced in 1 Corinthians 8:13; the third question corroborates the full purport of the second; and the fourth places him in probative relation to his readers, whom Paul καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς μαρτυρίαν καλεῖ, Theodoret.
ἐλεύθερος] free, dependent upon no man. Comp 1 Corinthians 9:19.
ἰησοῦν … ἑώρακα] Observe the solemnity of the phrase; his readers knew what was implied in it on his lips. The reference here is not to his having seen Christ in His earthly life, which would have had nothing to do with his apostleship, and which, moreover, cannot be proved to have taken place in the case of Paul at all,—certainly not from 2 Corinthians 5:16,—but to the sight of the glorified Jesus, which was first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him to be an apostle (Acts 9:17; Acts 22:14 f., Acts 26:16; Acts 15:8), and was often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Acts 18:9; Acts 22:17 f.; 2 Corinthians 12:1).(1394) It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later appearances (Estius, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann), since they, too, were granted to the apostle as such, and in connection with his apostolic relation to Christ; they could only serve to confirm his position of equality in the apostleship, and in this bearing were doubtless familiar to his readers from Paul’s own lips.
ἐν κυρίῳ] does not belong to ἔργον; just as little does it to ὑμεῖς (Pott), or to ὑμεῖς ἐστε alone (Rückert), but is meant to bring out the Christian character of the whole τὸ ἔργον μ. ὑμεῖς ἐστε. For out of Christ, in whom (as the object of faith) the Christian lives and moves, outside of this element of the new life and standing, the Corinthians, who owed their Christian existence to the apostle, were not his work. The rendering: by the help of the Lord, is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of those who adopt it understand κύριος of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Rückert, al(1395), following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp 1 Corinthians 4:15.
Verse 2-3
1 Corinthians 9:2-3. Not a parenthesis, but a statement interposed in his own defence, occasioned by οὐ τὸ ἔργον κ. τ. λ(1397), and flowing from a heart deeply moved.
ἄλλοις] i.e. in relation to others, who, not belonging to your community, do not own my apostleship as valid for them.(1398) “We have no Apostle Paul,” say they! Comp as to the relation of the dative, 1 Corinthians 8:6.
οὐκ εἰμί] See Winer, p. 446 [E. T. 601].
ἀλλάγε] still at least. See Hermann, a(1400) Viger. p. 826. The γε intensifies the ἀλλά of the apodosis (see on 1 Corinthians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 8:6): see Klotz, a(1401) Devar. p. 24 f. It cannot be said with any critical certainty that ἀλλάγε ever occurs in the classics undivided (without one or more words put between the two particles). See Klotz, l.c(1402) p. 15, and Heind. a(1403) Plat. Phaed. p. 86 E Stallbaum, a(1404) Rep. p. 331 B.
Taking the reading ἡ γὰρ σφραγ. μου τ. ἀποστ. (see the critical remarks), the meaning is: my seal of apostleship, with the emphasis on σφραγ. As to the word itself, see Romans 4:11. Theodoret well remarks: ἀπόδειξιν γὰρ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν κατορθωμάτων τὴν ὑμετέραν ἔχω μεταβολήν.
ἐν κυρίῳ] as in 1 Corinthians 9:1; it belongs to the whole preceding clause: ἡ σφραγὶς τ. ἐμ. ἀπ. ὑμ. ἐστε. For out of Christ the Corinthians were no seal of Paul’s apostleship. See on 1 Corinthians 9:1. They were this seal to him, inasmuch as they had become Christians through his agency (in general, not through his miracles in particular, as Flatt holds with older expositors).
ἡ ἐμὴ ἀπολογ. κ. τ. λ(1405)] statement of what the foregoing comes to, added without any connective particle, and so all the more emphatic; not merely a repetition of the last clause in other words (Hofmann), which would be an admissible interpretation only if αὕτη ἐστι were absent, or if ἐστέ occurred again.
τοῖς ἑ΄ὲ ἀνακρ.] to those who institute an inquiry regarding me (comp Acts 19:33; 2 Corinthians 12:19), who question my apostleship. Both ἀπολ. and ἀνακρ. are purposely-chosen forensic expressions. Comp as to the latter, Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8; Acts 28:18.
αὓτη] this, namely, this fact, that you are the seal of mine ἀποστολή. It does not refer to what follows (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Calovius), for 1 Corinthians 9:4 continues the series of questions begun in 1 Corinthians 9:1, and what follows does not contain any further defence of his apostleship (which, moreover, would be quite unsuitable here).
Observe, lastly, the emphasis of ἐμή and ἐ΄έ, expressive of a well-grounded sense of his own position.
Verse 4
1 Corinthians 9:4 f. Returning from the digression in 1 Corinthians 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.
μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν] i.e. we surely are not destitute of the right to lead, etc.? Comp Romans 10:18; 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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, 1 Corinthians 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 μόνος in 1 Corinthians 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.”
φαγεῖν κ. πιεῖν] 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 1 Corinthians 9:6 ff. The right of eating and drinking, in the sense in which the reader would naturally understand it as an apostolic prerogative (Luke 10:7), required nothing to be added to define it. The analogy of Matthew 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 τοῦ (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10, al(1410)).
ἀδελφὴν γυν. περιάγ.] 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, τινές 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, Matthew 8:14.(1412) It has, however, been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly insufficient grounds. On περιάγειν, comp Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 28; it occurs oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mem. i. 7. 2; Polyb. xx. 5. 8.