1 Corinthians 9:5Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Nevertheless, here he does not mean this. What, then? We do not eat and drink at the expense of the disciples, although we have the right to receive from them.

“Do we not have authority to have a sister, a woman, as a companion, as also the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Do you see his wisdom?

He places the chief Apostle afterward. He sets the strongest proof at the end, because pointing to others who do this would not be as striking as pointing to the first Apostle, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were entrusted.

Yet he points not to him alone, but to all. It is as though he says: whether you look to the lesser or to the greater, they all serve as examples.

The brethren of the Lord, having abandoned their former unbelief, were also renowned, though they were not equal to the Apostles. Therefore he places them in the middle, setting the principal ones before and after them.

For this purpose believing women who possessed material means went about with the Apostles. From these means they ministered to them, so that they might lack nothing necessary for life.

Saint Paul shows that the same thing was permitted to him which the other Apostles did. Yet afterward he mentions that he did not wish to make use of this authority.

Some people, not understanding the words, “Do we not have authority to have a sister, a woman, as a companion,” interpreted them in the sense of “wife.” But they were deceived by the ambiguity of the Greek word, which denotes both a woman and a wife.

Moreover, the Apostle arranged the words so that no such deception would arise. He does not simply say “a woman,” but “a sister, a woman.” Nor does he say “to take as wife,” but “to have as companion.”

Even Barnabas, who bore one yoke with him, grew weary of this unending journey and labor and yielded the first place to Paul.

When Barnabas had not yet separated from him, Paul wrote the following: “Do we not have authority to lead about a sister, a woman, as do the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who have no authority to refrain from working?” (1 Cor 9:5-6).

This does not mean that these counselors of virginity and preachers of chastity, who set in order companies of virgins, lived with wives.

For who would have agreed to heed their counsels to live in virginity, if they themselves were seen to be sunk in pleasures?

Therefore the Apostle does not say this. Otherwise he would have spoken as the writers of marriage contracts do: “to feed and clothe a wife and spouse, as befits a wife and spouse, according to one’s strength.”

They say “wife” to denote the sex, and “spouse” to denote cohabitation. But since women followed the Apostles in order to feed the teachers of non-possessiveness from their own property, the Apostle said “sister” to show purity, and “woman” to denote sex.

For even a virgin is called a woman, though she be untouched. She is a woman in appearance, though innocent; a woman by nature, though a stranger to intercourse with the male sex.

That this designation is not used without special intent is evident from this. The same Paul, whose saying some dare to distort maliciously, spoke of the Savior, born according to the flesh from the Holy Virgin Mary, and said: “born of a Woman” (Gal 4:4).

What are you doing, Paul? Do you call the Virgin a Woman? Yes, he says, I call Her Woman according to nature, but I understand Her in thought as Virgin.

For the Virgin, though She knows not marriage, is a woman. She is a woman in appearance and bodily constitution, but Virgin in innocence and purity.

But here it must be noted that, although Paul wrote in his epistle to the Philippians, “Yes, I ask you also, true yokefellow” (Phil 4:3), and although the God-bearing Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians, places Paul among those joined in marriage, it is nevertheless improbable, as many interpreters affirm, that Paul was bound in marriage.

For if he had a wife, why did he compare himself with the unmarried and widows, writing to the same Corinthians: “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am” (1 Cor 7:8)?

Since he did not say “true spouse,” but “true yokefellow,” it is clear that he spoke not of a woman, but of a man. He was called Syzygus, and perhaps he was a brother or husband of one of the women he mentions, Euodia or Syntyche.

Or Paul may have called some close friend of his Syzygus, “yokefellow,” because he bore the same yoke of Christ with him.

As for Ignatius’s testimony, there is some suspicion concerning it. Perhaps Paul’s name was inserted by some heretic, or by an Orthodox person who was trying thereby to prove that Paul had a wife.

Concerning the women who likewise went about with the Apostles, the opinion of the interpreters mentioned above is more credible. They say that certain faithful and honorable women followed the Apostles out of reverence for them and served them.

The Apostles did not forbid this God-pleasing zeal, imitating in this their Teacher, Whom many women served in Jerusalem, “who ministered to Him from their possessions” (Lk 8:3).

In the words before us, Paul says: do I not have authority to lead about with me a woman as a sister, so that she may serve me, as the other Apostles do?

The brethren of the Lord also do this: James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, the sons of Joseph. And not only they, but Cephas himself, that is, Peter.

Σὐζυγος signifies both the proper name Syzygus and the common noun “spouse.” The Greek word σὐζυγος is composed of the preposition σὐ, “with,” and the noun συγός, “burden.” Therefore it is interpreted, so to speak, as “one who bears the same yoke,” or a fellow laborer.

But the Apostle Paul and Barnabas, as is evident, declined the companionship of such women, although according to the testimony of tradition some women did in fact accompany them, for example the protomartyr Thecla and others.

As for the question whether the Apostle Paul was married or not, ancient tradition is already divided in opinion. Eusebius (Church History 3:31) does not doubt that he was married.

But the majority, relying on 1 Cor 7:8, hold the opposite opinion. The brethren of the Lord are here distinguished from the Apostles because they were not among the Twelve.

Their names are in Mark, Mk 6:3. Concerning their distinction from the Apostles who had the same names, James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Jude of James, see the note on the writer of the catholic Epistle of James.

If he had limited himself to the single word ‘sister,’ one might have thought he was speaking of a natural sister according to the flesh. Then the word ‘woman’ would have been superfluous.

Thus ‘sister, a woman’ has the same sense as ‘men, brethren’” (Theodoret).

These women were honorable both in condition and in age. “Rich women from among the believers followed some Apostles and supplied them with the necessities of life, so that, being free from such cares, they might devote themselves to preaching alone” (Oecumenius).

“As also the other Apostles.” By no means were all the Apostles married. Perhaps two or three were. The others were unmarried. When they went out to preach, or even when they were called by the Lord, they left all things pertaining to marriage and worldly life.

Thus the Apostle Peter also testified before the Lord: “Behold, we have left all.” The word “lead about” must be understood in this sense: they allowed them to follow them and did not forbid them to provide for them.

An observer looking at them from outside could indeed think and say that they led them about. “And the brethren of the Lord” means either Joseph’s children by his first wife or His cousins.

The Evangelist John said of them that they did not yet believe in the Lord when He was on earth. This must be understood thus: they did not yet believe fully, and not all of them, but some.

Afterward they all believed and zealously devoted themselves to the work of preaching the Gospel. “Cephas” is the Apostle Peter.

“Do you see the wisdom of Saint Paul? He places the chief Apostle afterward, setting the strongest proof at the end. For pointing to others who do this would not be so striking as pointing to the first Apostle.

Yet he points not to him alone, but to all. It is as though he says: whether you look to the lesser or to the greater, they all serve as examples.

The brethren of the Lord, having abandoned their former unbelief, were also renowned, though they were not equal to the Apostles of the Twelve. Therefore he places them in the middle, setting the principal ones before and after them” (Chrysostom).