1Co 9:10. Altogether On the whole. It cannot be thought that God had no regard at all to the brute creatures, in such precepts as these; and therefore it is better to render , by on the whole, than entirely, or altogether; though that sense is more frequent. See Mintert, and Vigerus.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 9:10 . Or since that cannot be supposed is this the true state of the case, that He saith it altogether for our sakes ?

] in the sense of in any case, wholly, absolutely , as in 1Co 5:10 , 1Co 9:22 ; see the remarks there. Comp Act 18:21 ; Act 21:22 ; Act 28:4 , also Rom 3:9 . The rendering: of course, certainly , is equally admissible as in Luk 4:23 , but would suit an affirmative statement better. Theophylact says well (following Chrysostom): , .

] cannot mean men in general (so most expositors, Hofmann, too, concurring), but must refer to the Christian teachers (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, Rckert, Neander, al [1429] ); this necessarily follows both from the whole connection of the argument and from the in 1Co 9:11 , since it is an entirely arbitrary assumption to make the latter word have a different subject from our .

] sc [1430] supplied from the foregoing clause, not (Olshausen).

as in 1Co 9:9 .

] namely, the utterance of the law cited in 1Co 9:9 .

] cannot have an argumentative force (Luther, Beza, Calvin, and others, among whom is Neander); nor is it the simple that of quotation (Rckert, who indeed looks upon what follows as cited from some apocryphal book, in which Ewald concurs with him), so that would refer to the next clause, but it is explicative merely (Castalio, Pott, de Wette, Osiander, al [1431] , comp also Hofmann), setting forth the typico-allegorical contents of these words of the law in so far as they were written , that is, for the Christian teachers: namely, that the plougher is bound to plough in hope, and the thrasher (is bound to thrash) in hope of having his share . The and the is thus no other than the gospel teacher , as necessarily follows from ; the passage of the law now under consideration gives occasion to his being figuratively designated (see as early expositors as Chrysostom and Theophylact) in accordance with the idea of the (1Co 3:9 ), without, however, the two words being intended to signify different departments of teaching, a notion which receives no countenance from the context. It is teaching in general that is here represented by two analogous figures. Figure apart , therefore, the meaning is: that the teacher, namely, is bound [1433] to exercise his office of teaching, in hope to have profit therefrom . , Chrysostom. It is a mistake to apply the words, as is commonly done, to the literal plougher and thrasher. Such a maxim of ordinary life would, it is plain, be wholly foreign to the typico-allegorical character of the argument, and generally to the nature of the mystical interpretation of Scripture, which Paul follows here; the result would be something unsuitably trivial . Nor is it simply an application of the moral idea of the precept to the spiritual work that the apostle would have his readers make; there is not the slightest trace of this in his words, but the material work serves directly as the foil to the spiritual. Theophylact puts it rightly: . . .

] has the chief emphasis, and belongs to , being its conditioning basis (as in Rom 4:18 ; Rom 8:21 ; Tit 1:2 ). What hope the plougher is to cherish, is self-evident, namely, to enjoy with others the fruits of his ploughing; the reference of the figure is obvious from the context.

] to wit, of the grain thrashed. As to the genitive , see Rom 5:2 , al [1434]

[1429] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1430] c. scilicet .

[1431] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1433] , debet (Vulgate). Hofmann goes against linguistic usage in turning it into the sense of being entitled , as if he read , or something to that effect.

[1434] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Ver. 10. Should plough in hope ] Of maintaining his life by his labour, which is therefore called “the life of our hands,” because it is upheld by the labour of our hands: Ludit, qui sterili semina mandat humo. (Propert.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

10. ] Or (the other alternative being rejected) on OUR account ( , emphatic not on account of men generally, but as Estius, “propter nos evangelii ministros:” cf. the of 1Co 9:11-12 , with which this is inseparably allied) altogether ( ,. . Chrys. p. 183) does it ( : or perhaps , but better the former, as above, being only incidentally introduced as the confessed Author of the law, and remaining the subject of the sentence) say (this)? (on our account): for on our account it (viz. . . ., not, that which follows, q. esset ) was written: because (argumentative, as the ground of , not, as in some of my earlier editions, containing the purpose of , expressed in its practical result ) the plougher (not literal but spiritual, see below) ought to plough in hope, and the thresher ( to thresh , see var. readd.) in hope of partaking (of the crop). The words used in this sentence are evidently spiritual , and not literal . They are inseparably connected with which precedes them: and according to the common explanation of them as referring to a mere maxim of agricultural life, would have no force whatever. But spiritually taken, all coheres. “The command (not to muzzle, &c.) was written on account of us (Christian teachers) because we ploughers (in the , ch. 1Co 3:9 ) ought to plough in hope, and we threshers (answering to the ) ought to work in hope of (as the ox) having a share.” So Chrys. and Theophyl.: , , . . So also Meyer and De Wette: but by far the greater part of interpreters (also Stanley) take it literally; understanding of mankind in general, and and of labourers in agriculture . No minute distinction must be sought between the and the . The former is perhaps mentioned on account of the process answering to the breaking up the fallow ground of Heathenism: the latter on account of its occurrence in the precept.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

for our sakes = on account of (Greek. dia. App-104. 1Co 9:2) us.

is = was.

ploweth. Greek. arotriao. Only here and Luk 17:7.

should = ought to.

in = upon. App-104.

thresheth. See 1Co 9:9.

should be, &c. The texts read “(should do so) upon the hope of partaking (of the fruit). “

be partaker = share. Greek. metecho. Elsewhere, 1Co 9:12; 1Co 10:17, 1Co 10:21, 1Co 10:30. Heb 2:14; Heb 5:13; Heb 7:13.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

10.] Or (the other alternative being rejected) on OUR account ( , emphatic-not on account of men generally, but as Estius, propter nos evangelii ministros: cf. the of 1Co 9:11-12, with which this is inseparably allied) altogether ( ,. . Chrys. p. 183) does it ( : or perhaps , but better the former, as above, being only incidentally introduced as the confessed Author of the law, and remaining the subject of the sentence) say (this)? (on our account): for on our account it (viz. …, not, that which follows, q. esset ) was written: because (argumentative, as the ground of ,-not, as in some of my earlier editions, containing the purpose of , expressed in its practical result) the plougher (not literal but spiritual, see below) ought to plough in hope, and the thresher (to thresh, see var. readd.) in hope of partaking (of the crop). The words used in this sentence are evidently spiritual, and not literal. They are inseparably connected with which precedes them: and according to the common explanation of them as referring to a mere maxim of agricultural life, would have no force whatever. But spiritually taken, all coheres. The command (not to muzzle, &c.) was written on account of us (Christian teachers) because we ploughers (in the , ch. 1Co 3:9) ought to plough in hope,-and we threshers (answering to the ) ought to work in hope of (as the ox) having a share. So Chrys. and Theophyl.: , , . . So also Meyer and De Wette: but by far the greater part of interpreters (also Stanley) take it literally; understanding of mankind in general, and and of labourers in agriculture. No minute distinction must be sought between the and the . The former is perhaps mentioned on account of the process answering to the breaking up the fallow ground of Heathenism:-the latter on account of its occurrence in the precept.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 9:10. , altogether) The word, saying, is put into the question itself.-) namely, that- ), , which the LXX. always render : comp. Act 2:26.-, ought) There is a change of person. The obligation [implied in ] is with them that remunerate, not with them that labour; otherwise the latter would commit sin by not receiving. So also regarding the precept, 1Co 9:14 : comp. I ought, 2Co 12:11.- , that [animal] which ploweth [or he that ploweth]) This also is the labour of oxen. It seems to be an adage, something like this; hope supports the husbandman.- ,[74] of his hope) The abstract for the concrete: of the fruits, in the hope of which he, who now threshes, plowed,-, to become partaker) viz. ought. To become partaker of his hope is a periphrasis for the verb to thresh. Namely, he who plows, plows in the hope of threshing and eating; he, who threshes, possesses that hope, which he had in plowing, and threshes in the hope of eating.

[74] The margin of the 2d Ed. prefers the shorter reading, , of which there is not a vestige, either in the older Ed., or in the Gnomon, or in the Germ. Vers.-E. B.

is the reading of ABC both Syr. (Memph.) Theb. Vulg. (in spe fructus percipiendi) Orig. 1,170; 541 c. But D () corrected later, G fg read : to which Rec. Text adds .-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 9:10

1Co 9:10

or saith he it assuredly for your sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking.-This was written to teach that those laboring in the service of the Lord were entitled to a living from those for whom they labored, whatever their labor might be. [So the good which such a provision as the law achieved for the oxen was nothing compared to the good which it accomplished for man. God did not do this simply as a provision for the ox, but to teach us that it is a divine principle that the laborer should have his reward.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

For: Mat 24:22, Rom 15:4, 2Co 4:15

that ploweth: 1Co 3:9, Luk 17:7, Luk 17:8, Joh 4:35-38, 2Ti 2:6

Reciprocal: Num 18:31 – your reward Num 31:41 – Eleazar Num 35:2 – General Deu 12:19 – Take Deu 25:4 – muzzle 2Ch 4:3 – And under Isa 28:28 – Bread Isa 30:24 – oxen Eze 1:10 – the face of an ox Mat 10:31 – General Rom 4:23 – General 1Co 10:11 – they Phi 3:8 – doubtless Phi 4:14 – ye did 1Ti 5:18 – Thou Rev 4:7 – like a calf

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 9:10. For our sakes . . . this is written. The law indeed was intended as a merciful provision for the dumb creature, but it was written as a lesson for men who were to partake of the fruit of their own labors.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 9:10. or … for our sake?to teach this general lesson, that he that ploweth ought to plow in hope … of partaking.[1] If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter that we should reap your carnal things? What they owed to him as their spiritual father admitted of no comparison with anything they could do for him in things temporal, though they might express it in the supply of his temporal wants.

[1] Such appears to be the true reading here.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Vv. 10. Or saith He it not altogether for our sakes? Yea, for our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that he that thresheth should partake of the object hoped for.

The meaning of the , or, is this: Or, if it cannot be for the sake of oxen that God has spoken thus, is it not absolutely for us, that is to say, with a view to man’s heart to train it to generous feelings? The may signify entirely, absolutely (not at all on account of oxen); but it may also, as in Luk 4:13, have the meaning of certainly.

The sequel shows that the understood answer is strongly affirmative: Yea, absolutely for us! for it is for us that it was written that… The , for us, signifies that in thus legislating, it was man’s moral good, and not the satisfying of oxen, that God had in view. The , us, has sometimes been taken as referring to the ministers of the gospel. There is nothing to justify this restricted application. In this case we should have required , in our favour. The opposite of oxen is men, and not apostles. Paul does not, therefore, in the least suppress the historical and natural meaning of the precept, as is thought by de Wette, Rckert, Meyer, Reuss, Edwards, and so many others. He recognises it fully, and it is precisely by starting from this sense that he rises to a higher application. In the conduct which God prescribes to man toward this animal, which serves him as a faithful worker, Paul finds the proof of the conduct which man should with stronger reason observe toward his human servants, and with still stronger reason the Church toward its ministers. This entire gradation would crumble instantly were the lowest step of the scale suppressed, that which was directly present to the mind of Moses; a fact which was understood by the apostle as well as by those who criticize him. Far from arbitrarily allegorizing, he applies, by a well-founded a fortiori, to a higher relation what God had prescribed with reference to a lower relation.

The for [yea] bears, as it does so often, on the understood affirmative answer. And the reasoning is this: The precept has not its full sense except when applied to a reasonable being. For it is not oxen that can be encouraged during the toil of ploughing by foreseeing the joy of harvest. The human workman, on the contrary, can calculate beforehand the share in the result of his labour which will be granted to him, and be sustained by this hope. This is what God would have His people understand by forbidding them to deprive the ox of enjoying the result of his labour on the happy day of harvest.

It is possible, as many do, to explain the in the sense of because: It was written, because this is how it is just that the case should be in all relations; or we may translate by the simple that, which makes the following clause the subject of , it was written. In this sense Paul would regard the clause dependent on as the simple paraphrase of the word: Thou shalt not muzzle…, in Deuteronomy; but this, 1Co 9:10, contains a wholly new idea. In any case, it would be very forced to give to this the meaning of: to demonstrate that…, as Edwards proposes.

This apostolic paraphrase of the Mosaic command is generally ill understood, and that because the two acts of ploughing and treading out are regarded as two parallel examples; they are taken to mean two works, of which Paul declares that both should be done with the expectation of recompense. With such an idea it becomes impossible to understand the words and reasoning of the apostle. According to a view common in the Scriptures, the act of ploughing is a hard and painful labour, and consequently the man who gives himself to it needs encouragement. This encouragement is the hope that he shall one day participate in the produce of harvest. There is nothing painful, on the contrary, in the act of treading out; it belongs to the harvest day, and consequently to the hour of joy, to the festival by which the ploughman is recompensed for his toil. On this entire order of ideas, comp. Psa 126:5-6 : They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves. And if this is true in regard to man, it ought to be so also in regard to the being of an inferior order who shares his labour and pain. But it cannot be so with the ox which has ploughed with him, except on condition that no muzzle is applied to deprive it of its portion at the time of the festival, hindering it from tasting the fruit which it has contributed to produce.

The two acts, then, of ploughing and treading out are so far from being related as two examples in juxtaposition, though they are constantly regarded in this light, that the former alone is considered as a labour; the latter is the recompense rightly expected by the workman who has done the former. The understanding of this suffices to make it plain that the reading preserved by the Greco-Latin Mjj. is the only one which corresponds to the apostle’s thought: He that plougheth should plough with hope (this is what sustains him in his painful toil), and (when the day of harvest has come) at the time when he treads out, he ought not to be cheated of the hoped-for boon (as would be the case if he were muzzled on that day). Having been at the toil, he ought also to be at the recompense, enjoying the harvest. The Alexandrine copyists having, like the commentators in general, understood the two acts of ploughing and treading as two equally painful labours, which are both entitled to the expected recompense, thought that they should apply the notion of hope also to the act of treading, whereas it applied only to ploughing; hence their reading: And he that treadeth out [should tread], with the hope of partaking. The Byzantines, after beginning like the Westerns, were led astray by the already corrupted Alexandrine text, and added, like them, to the end of the second proposition the words: , in hope, which, as we have seen, have no meaning when applied to him who threshes. The application to the relation between the apostle and the Church which he founded is thus perfectly clear. The time comes when the apostle, after painfully ploughing and sowing, is entitled to partake of the harvest, by receiving from the community once formed what is needful for his maintenance. To refuse him this fruit of his painful labour at this time would be to act contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic precept, to convert the rightful expectation of the faithful workman into a deception.

This passage rightly understood is singularly instructive. It is difficult to suppress a smile when listening to the declamations of our moderns against the allegorizing mania of the Apostle Paul, or when we find even an Edwards imagining that he who ploughs is the labourer who founds a church, and he who threshes represents the subsequent labourers who build it up! Paul does not in the least allegorize either in the sense of Edwards or in any other. From the literal and natural meaning of the precept he disentangles a profound moral truth, a law of humanity and equity, and drawing from its temporary wrapping this permanent lesson, he applies it with admirable exactness to the case in hand.

Moreover, we have to gather from the study of this passage a very important lesson as to the preservation of the text. All our great modern critics, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, think the preference should be given as a rule to the readings of the ancient Alex. Mjj., and one is thought lagging behind the age if he does not follow them with docility in this path. Now here is a case where the corruption of the text in these documents is patent, and where it is easy to discover the false idea which produced the corruption. Is exegesis to be held bound, as Westcott and Hort would demand, to close its eyes to the light, and hold by a decidedly corrupt text, because it has on its side the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus? The interpreter of the Holy Scriptures is not at liberty to subordinate his common sense to the arbitrariness, the ignorance, or the negligence of the ancient copyists.

The two following verses do not so much contain new arguments in favour of the apostolic right established by Paul, as subsidiary reflections, intended to show better how the precept founded on human analogies (1Co 9:7) and on biblical right (1Co 9:8-10) applies still more rigorously to the apostle and his fellow-labourers than would at first sight appear.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking. [Those fond of carping and caviling have attempted to use this passage to prove that Paul asserts that God does not care for animals. Such a view is abundantly contradicted by Scripture (Job 38:41; Psa 147:9; Mat 6:26; Luk 12:24). Paul’s meaning is clear. In giving the law, God’s proximate design was to care for oxen, but his ultimate design was to enforce the principle that labor should not go unrewarded; that each workman might discharge his task in cheerful expectation that he would receive wages for his employment. Paul asserts that God does not legislate for oxen and forget men. It is an argument a minori ad magnus, such as Christ himself employed (Mat 6:26-30) Third argument: The law of exchange demands an equivalent for value received.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

God meant to encourage human laborers with His provision for animals that labored. He wanted human laborers to work with the hope of pay. The people who profited from those services should consider those who served them worthy of support.

"Not muzzling an ox . . . was probably a proverbial expression concerning just remuneration, properly understood and interpreted as such by Paul. A modern parallel would be the adage, ’You can’t teach an old dog new tricks,’ which is commonly applied in contexts other than canine obedience." [Note: Lowery, p. 523.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)