Paul and Barnabas were the ones who brought the gospel to them.  The Corinthians received it and flourished.  But then they learned about “super apostles” and other leaders and important people of the faith.  When it came to being generous, the Corinthians looked to these big names, forgetting their fathers in the faith–Paul and Barnabas.

Instead, they not only withheld funds from them, but they also criticized them and held them to a different standard.  They should have to work for their provision and not receive finances for their labors.

Paul is going to correct this.  Not because he needs financial support, or wants benefit from them, but rather to confront their attitude.  Respect was due Paul and Barnabas for their service to the Corinthians, and instead they were being treated far less.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?  If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

This is my defense to those who would examine me.  Do we not have the right to eat and drink?  Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?  Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

The Scriptures teach that the worker deserves his wages.  At the very least, they should have, by virtue of the holy Scriptures, been generous and blessed Paul and Barnabas financially.  Instead, they withheld it and gave it to others.  This was wrong.

Maybe they did this because Paul and Barnabas were single.  We don’t have any evidence to believe that either of them were married.  They could have been, but there’s no mention of it, and their extensive traveling of up to a year and a half to two years would seem to indicate otherwise.  For Paul, we also have 1 Corinthians 7 which is all about the benefits of singleness.

Paul is going to say something strange in his next order of logic.  He says that he and Barnabas should both be recipients of honor and finance, even as they will refuse any finance.  But he wants to make it clear that they should be recipients of it.  It’s a heart attitude he is confronting.  But then he says this?

“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Cor 9:5).

If they had been married, like the other apostles who were receiving funds, then maybe they would have been on the receiving end of honor, respect, and generosity.  As it was, they were cut off.  Even though they were the ones who brought the gospel to the Corinthians and were their “fathers” in the faith.  Was it because they were not married like the others that the Corinthians believed that they should get out and work for a living?

Possibly.

It would explain the context and why Paul is bringing this up.  They have the potential for the rights just as all the other apostles, it’s just that they are not going to take it.  But Paul is saying they should be treated as equals or even with greater respect.

Paul is saying that he and Barnabas have the right to be financially provided for just just as much as the other apostles that are married.  This is why it makes sense when Paul says,

“Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?” (v. 6).

And then right before it he is contrasting he and Barnabas as opposed to the marries apostles.

Most commentators differ and see that Paul uses this argument of taking a wife as one of the rights that he and Barnabas have, but choose not to take.  It is said that this fits the context.

• v.4 — right to eat and drink

• v.5 — right to take along a believing wife

• v.6 — right not to work

• v.12 — right to financial support

But there’s the issue that the greater context is about provision, and this immediate context is about provision (v 4, 6, and 12), not whether one has the right to marry or not.

Some say that this is both.  That Paul is asserting his right to marry, but also the right to receive finance.

The question is why would he bring up the right of marriage where all the verses before and after are about financial provision?

This author’s belief differs from the standard belief that Paul is arguing his right to take a wife or not.  This wouldn’t make sense in the flow of the text.  The issue is the Corinthians providing and taking care of the other apostles, but Paul and Barnabas.  And what makes them different?  The only contrast offered is one of married apostles vs. Paul and Barnabas.

Then there’s the following text which is still all about provision.  Not the right to marry or not.

“Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?  For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?  Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.  If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?  If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor 9:8-12).

Furthermore, this would fit into the text of 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul is upholding the value of singleness in the service of ministry.  It isn’t a less calling, it is actually greater in that more can be done for the kingdom.

As we know from Paul’s hermeneutic, his arguments build upon one another.  Therefore it would make complete sense for Paul to mention marriage and singleness in 1 Cor 9:5 because it is something he is already addressing. But this time it pertains to how they are treating Paul and Barnabas financially as if they were the only ones who needed to work, and not the married apostles.

Paul will firmly refuse any financing, believing that a “father” should work and save for the children.  In this case, the father of faith for the newer believers in the faith.  But he wanted to confront and correct their beliefs and their heart attitude.