The interpretation timeline

1Cor 9:5

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

4 Patristic · 2 Reformed · 1 Catholic

1Cor 9:5 · Douay-Rheims
“Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Patristic before A.D. 750
215
A.D.
c. A.D. 150–215
“The apostles concentrated on undistracted preaching and took their wives around as Christian sisters rather than as spouses, to be their fellow ministers to the women of the household, so that the gospel would reach them without causing scandal.”
220
A.D.
Tertullian Patristic
c. A.D. 150–220
“Thus it comes to pass that "all things are lawful, but not all are expedient," so long as (it remains true that) whoever has a "permission" granted is (thereby) tried, and is (consequently) judged during the process of trial in (the case of the particular) "permission." Apostles, withal, had a "licence" to marry, and lead wives about (with them ).”
Source
210 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
430
A.D.
Augustine of Hippo Patristic
A.D. 354–430
“But let us return to the order of our discourse, and the whole of the passage itself of the Epistle let us diligently consider. "Have we not," saith he, "leave to eat and to drink? have we not leave to lead about a woman, a sister?" What leave meant he, but what the Lord gave unto them whom He sent to preach the kingdom of heaven, saying, "Those things which are (given) of them, eat ye; for the workman is worthy of his hire;" and proposing Himself as an example of the same power, to Whom most faithful women did of their means minister such necessaries? But the Apostle Paul hath done more, from his fellow-Apostles alleging a proof of this license permitted of the Lord. For not as finding fault hath he subjoined, "As do also the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas;" but that hence he might show that this which he would not accept was a thing which, that it was lawful for him to accept was proved by the wont of the rest also his fellow-soldiers.”
Source
430
A.D.
Augustine of Hippo Patristic
A.D. 354–430
“To the Corinthians, namely, writing of this same thing, he saith thus, "Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an Apostle, to you assuredly I am. For the seal of mine Apostle-ship are ye in the Lord. My defense to them which interrogate me is this. Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a woman who is a sister, as also the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" See how first he shows what is lawful to him, and therefore lawful for that he is an Apostle... Which being proved, he shows that to be lawful to him which was so to the other Apostles; that is, that he should not work with his hands, but live by the Gospel, as the Lord appointed, which in what follows he has most openly demonstrated; for to this end did also faithful women which had earthly substance go with them, and minister unto them of their substance, that they might lack none of those things which pertain to the necessities of this life. Which thing blessed Paul demonstrates to be lawful indeed unto himself, as also the other Apostles did it, but that he had not chosen to use this power he afterwards mentions. This thing some not understanding, have interpreted not "a woman which is a sister," when he said, "Have we not power to lead about a sister a woman;" but, "a sister a wife." They were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word, because both "wife" and "woman" is expressed in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the Apostle has so put this that they ought not to have made this mistake; for that he neither says "a woman" merely, but "a sister woman;" nor "to take" (as in marriage), but "to take about" (as on a journey). Howbeit other interpreters have not been misled by this ambiguity, and they have interpreted "woman" not "wife."”
Source
1,341 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Post-Reformation c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“Or I only and Barnabas,.... Who were for a great while companions and fellow travellers; are we alone? are we exempted from those rights and privileges, common to others? have not we power to forbear working? that is, with their hands, at their trades and occupations, to get their living by: Paul worked at his trade, and so it seems Barnabas did likewise: Paul wrought with his hands at Corinth, in company with Aquila and Priscilla, they being tentmakers as he, Act 18:3 and so he did in other places; he appeals for the truth of this to the elders of the church at Ephesus, Act 20:34 and to the church of the Thessalonians, Th1 2:9 not but that he had a right and power to leave off business, to forbear working, and require a maintenance from those to whom he ministered; but for some reasons he chose not to make use of this his power and liberty, because he would not be chargeable to them; and lest that upon his first preaching the Gospel to them, they should think he had worldly selfish ends in view, and not the good of souls, and glory of Christ; however, he hereby lets them know, that though Barnabas and he continued to get their bread by their own hand labour, they had a right to quit their trades, and throw themselves upon them for a maintenance. The apostle seems, in this, to imitate the ancient, wise, and holy men of his nation, who taught the law freely, and took nothing for it; not that they thought it was unlawful, or that they had no right to a maintenance on account of it, but for the honour of religion, and that piety they professed; and lest the law should be thought to be made a trade of, they chose not to insist upon it (d). (d) Maimon. & Bartenora in Pirke Abot, c. 4. sect. 5.”
Source
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“It appears certain, from the testimony of the fathers, that St. Paul was not in the state of wedlock. St. Jerome informs us that the apostle is here speaking of such holy women who, according to the Jewish custom, supplied their teachers with the necessaries of life, as we see was done to Christ himself. It is evident from ancient records that this was a very prevalent custom in Judea, and therefore a cause of no scandal; but to the Gentiles this custom was unknown, and therefore lest it might prove a cause of scandal to any, St. Paul did not allow any woman to follow him as a companion. Tertullian denies, with St. Augustine and St. Jerome, that St. Paul is here speaking of his wife. (Estius; Calmet) — A woman, a sister. [2] Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, a sister, a wife; whereas it is certain, St. Paul had no wife, (chap. vii. ver. 7. 8.) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries. (Challoner) — And to what end could he talk of burthening the Corinthians with providing for his wife, when he himself clearly affirmeth that he was single? (Chap. vii. v. 7. and 8.) This all the Greek fathers affirm, with St. Augustine, do op. Monach. chap. iv.; St. Jerome, adv. Jovin. chap. xiv. &c. &c. [Also see annotations on ver. 25, below]”
Source
1871
A.D.
1871
“lead about a sister, a wife--that is, "a sister as a wife"; "a sister" by faith, which makes all believers brethren and sisters in the one family of God: "a wife" by marriage covenant. Paul implies he did not exercise his undoubted right to marry and "lead about" a believer, for the sake of Christian expediency, as well to save the Church the expense of maintaining her in his wide circuits, as also that he might give himself more undistractedly to building up the Church of Christ (Co1 7:26, Co1 7:32, Co1 7:35). Contrast the Corinthians' want of self-sacrifice in the exercise of their "liberty" at the cost of destroying, instead of edifying, the Church (Co1 8:9, Margin; Co1 8:10-13). as other apostles--implying that some of them had availed themselves of the power which they all had, of marrying. We know from Mat 8:14, that Cephas (Peter) was a married man. A confutation of Peter's self-styled followers, the Romanists, who exclude the clergy from marriage. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 7.63] records a tradition that he encouraged his wife when being led to death by saying, "Remember, my dear one, the Lord." Compare EUSEBIUS [Eccleiastical History, 3.30]. brethren of the Lord--held in especial esteem on account of their relationship to Jesus (Act 1:14; Gal 1:9). James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. Probably cousins of Jesus: as cousins were termed by the Jews "brethren." ALFORD makes them literally brothers of Jesus by Joseph and Mary. Cephas--probably singled out as being a name carrying weight with one partisan section at Corinth. "If your favorite leader does so, surely so may I" (Co1 1:12; Co1 3:22).”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.