(1) Am I not an apostle?--Better, Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? such being the order of the words in the better MSS. Thus the thought grows more naturally out of the previous chapter than it seems to do in the English version. He had mentioned his solemn resolve to give up a freedom to which he had a right in regard to eating meat. He had on another occasion, in regard to his right of maintenance by the Church, also voluntarily sacrificed his freedom, and the Jewish party had in consequence denied the existence of the rights, and questioned his apostolic dignity. He asks, with abrupt emphasis, "Was it because I am not free to demand such support? My freedom in this case is as real as in that other case when you questioned it, and to which I shall now refer. Was it because I am not an Apostle?"

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?--To have seen Christ was a necessary qualification for the Apostolate (Acts 1:21). From the manner in which the Apostle here asks the question, and does not answer it, it would seem that although some small minority might, for some party purpose, have at some time questioned it, yet that the fact was generally admitted and universally known that St. Paul did actually see the Lord at the time of his conversion (Acts 9:4), and on other occasions (Acts 18:9; Acts 22:17).

Are not ye my work in the Lord?--This is a further proof of his Apostleship, and therefore of his right or freedom to have demanded support from the Church. (See 1Corinthians 4:15.)

Verses 1-27. - The rights and the self denial of an apostle. Verses 1-14. - An apostle's right to maintenance. Verse 1. - Am I not an apostle I am I not free? The order of the best manuscripts is, Am I not free? am I not an apostle? St. Paul designed in this chapter to show that he was not only giving a precept, but setting an example, He told the "strong" Corinthians, who had "knowledge," that they should be ready to abnegate their rights for the good of others, he now wishes to show them that, in a matter which affected his whole life, he had himself abnegated his own rights. Being free and an apostle, he could, if he had chosen, have claimed, as others had done, a right to be supported by the Churches to which he preached, he had thought it more for their good to waive this claim, and therefore he had done so at the cost (as appears in many other passages: 1 Corinthians 4:12; Acts 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:9) of bitter hardship to himself. But St. Paul practically "goes off" at the word "apostle." It was so essential for him to vindicate, against the subterranean malignity of hostile partisans, his dignity as an apostle, that in asserting that authority he almost loses sight for the time of the main object for which he had alluded to the fact. Hence much that he says is of the nature of a digression - though an important one - until he resumes the main thread of his subject at 1 Corinthians 11:15. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Doubtless he mainly refers to the vision on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3, 17; 1 Corinthians 15:8), though he received other visions and revelations also (Acts 18:9; Acts 22:14, 18; 2 Corinthians 12:1, etc.). he had probably not seen Christ during his life on earth (see my 'Life of St. Paul,' 1:73-75). The words are added to remind them that those who boasted of personal knowledge and relation with Jesus - perhaps the Christ party - had no exclusive prerogative. Are not ye my work in the Lord? I am not only an apostle, but emphatically your apostle (Acts 18:1-11; 1 Corinthians 4:15).

9:1-14 It is not new for a minister to meet with unkind returns for good-will to a people, and diligent and successful services among them. To the cavils of some, the apostle answers, so as to set forth himself as an example of self-denial, for the good of others. He had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people's duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support.Am I not an apostle? am I not free?.... The Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate Latin versions, put the last clause first; so the Alexandrian copy, and some other copies; and many interpreters are of opinion that it is the best order of the words; the apostle proceeding by a gradation from the less to the greater, having respect either to his freedom in the use of things indifferent, as eating of meats, &c. for though he did not think fit to use his liberty, to the wounding of weak consciences, it did not follow therefore that he was not free, as some might suggest from what he had said in the latter part of the foregoing chapter: or he may have respect to his freedom from the ceremonial law in general; for though, for the sake of gaining souls to Christ, he became all things to all men; to the Jews he became a Jew, that he might gain them; yet in such a manner as to preserve his liberty in Christ, without entangling himself with the yoke of bondage. Some have thought he intends, by his liberty, his right to insist upon a maintenance, and that he was no more obliged to work with his hands than other persons, of which he treats at large hereafter; but to me it rather seems that the words stand in their right order; and that, whereas there were some persons that either denied him to be an apostle, or at least insinuated that he was not one, nor was he to be treated as such, he goes upon the proof of it; and the first thing he mentions is his freedom, that is, from men; no man had any authority over him; he was not taught, nor sent forth, nor ordained by men as a minister, but immediately by Jesus Christ, as apostles were; they were set in the first place in the church, and had power to instruct, send forth, and ordain others; but none had power over them; and this being the apostle's case, proved him to be one; he was an apostle, because he was free:

have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? He had a spiritual sight of him by faith, but that did not show him to be an apostle; this is what he had in common with other believers: whether he saw him in the flesh, before his crucifixion and death, is not certain; it is very probable he might; yet this was no more than what Herod and Pontius Pilate did; but he saw him after his resurrection from the dead, to which he refers, 1 Corinthians 15:8 and designs here, as a proof of his apostleship, this being what the apostles were chosen to be eyewitnesses of, Acts 10:41 and publish to the world: now our apostle saw him several times; first at the time of his conversion, next when in a trance at Jerusalem, and again in the castle where the chief captain put him for security, and very probably also when he was caught up into the third heaven:

are not you my work in the Lord? as they were regenerated, converted persons, and were become new creatures; not efficiently, but instrumentally; they were God's workmanship, as he was the efficient cause of their conversion and faith; his only, as an instrument by whom they believed; and therefore he adds, "in the Lord"; ascribing the whole to his power and grace: however, as he had been the happy instrument of first preaching the Gospel to them, and of begetting them again through it; of founding and raising such a large flourishing church as they were; it was no inconsiderable proof of his apostleship.