Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 9:8
Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
8. Say I these things as a man? ] i.e. from a purely human point of view. Cf. Rom 3:5 and Gal 3:15. This second argument is drawn from the law of Moses, and its force would be admitted by the Judaizing section of St Paul’s opponents.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Say I these things as a man? – Do I speak this on my own authority, or without the sanction of God? Is not this, which appears to be so reasonable and equitable, also supported by the authority of God?
Or saith not the law the same also? – The Law of Moses, to which the Jewish part of the church at Corinth – which probably had mainly urged these objections – professed to bow with deference. Paul was accustomed, especially in arguing with the Jews, to derive his proofs from the Old Testament. In the previous verse he had shown that it was equitable that ministers of the gospel should be supported. In this and the following verses he shows that the same principle was recognized and acted on under the Jewish dispensation. He does not mean to say, by this example of the ox treading out the grain, that the law as given by Moses referred to the Christian ministry; but that the principle there was settled that the laborer should have a support, and that a suitable provision should not be withheld even from an ox; and if God so regarded the welfare of a brute when laboring, it was much more reasonable to suppose that he would require a suitable provision to be made for the ministers of religion.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. Say I these things as a man?] Is this only human reasoning? or does not God say in effect the same things? See Clarke on Ro 6:19.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
That is, I do not speak this only rationally, or by a fallible spirit, nor do I build this assertion alone upon instances known and familiar amongst men. As this is highly reasonable, and conformable to what the very light of nature showeth, and the law of nature obligeth men to in other cases, where men take others off their own work to attend theirs; so it is according to the will of God, which is the highest reason.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. as a manI speak thus notmerely according to human judgment, but with the sanction ofthe divine law also.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Say I these things as a man?…. After the manner of men, reasoning from things common among men, and obvious to everyone’s observation:
or saith not the law the same also? As the subject the apostle is upon was capable of being illustrated and confirmed by instances common unto, and easy of observation among men; so it might be supported by divine authority; it was not only a clear point from the reason of things, but was certain by the law of God.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Do I speak these things after the manner of men? ( ;). Negative answer expected. Paul uses six times (1Cor 3:3; 1Cor 9:8; 1Cor 15:32; Gal 1:11; Gal 3:15; Rom 3:5). The illustrations from human life are pertinent, but he has some of a higher order, from Scripture.
The law also ( ). Perhaps objection was made that the Scripture does not support the practice of paying preachers. That objection is still made by the stingy.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
As a man [ ] . Rev., after the manner of men. See on Rom 3:5. The formula occurs six times in Paul ‘s epistles. The question introduces another kind of evidence – that from Scripture. I will not confine myself to illustrations from human affairs. I will appeal to Scripture.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Say I these things as a man?” (me kata anthropon tauta lalo) “I speak not these things (merely) as a man.” The things Paul was setting forth were of Divine Revelation, not of the will of man, 1Co 14:37; Gal 1:11-12.
2) “Or saith not the law the same also? (e kai ho nomos tauta ou legei) “Or says not the law also these things?” Paul continued his rhetoric use of the question to elicit an affirmative response to all who were familiar with the Law of Moses. From the argument of natural necessary inference illustrations to affirm the validity of missionary ministerial support, Paul moved to Scriptural, testamentary evidence, as folIows:
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8. Say I these things as a man ? Lest any one should cavil, and say that in the things of the Lord the case is different, and therefore that he had to no purpose brought forward so many comparisons, he now adds, that the very same thing is commanded by the Lord. To speak as a man sometimes means — speaking according to the perverse judgment of the flesh, (as in Rom 3:5.) Here, however, it means — bringing forward only those things that are in common use among men, and are merely current (as they speak) in a human court. Now, that God himself designed that the labors of men should be remunerated by wages, he proves from this, that he prohibits the muzzling of the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; and with the view of applying it to the subject in hand, he says, that God was not concerned as to oxen, but rather had regard to men.
In the first place, it may be asked, Why has he more particularly selected this proof, while he had in the law passages that were much clearer? as for example, Deu 24:15,
The wages of the hireling shall not remain with thee over night.
If any one, however, will take a nearer view, he will acknowledge that there is more force in this quotation, in which the Lord requires cattle to be taken care of, for from this it is inferred, from the less to the greater, how much equity he requires among men, when he wishes that it should be shown to brute animals. When he says, that God does not take care for oxen, you are not to understand him as meaning to exclude oxen from the care of God’s Providence, inasmuch as he does not overlook even the least sparrow. (Mat 6:26, and Mat 10:29.) Nor is it as if he meant to expound that precept allegorically, as some hair-brained spirits take occasion from this to turn everything into allegories. Thus they turn dogs into men, trees into angels, and turn all scripture into a laughing-stock.
Paul’s meaning is simple — that, when the Lord enjoins humanity to oxen, he does not do it for the sake of oxen, but rather from a regard to men, on whose account, too, the very oxen were created. That compassion, therefore, towards oxen should be a stimulus to us to stir up to the exercise of humanity among us, as Solomon says, (Pro 12:10,)
The righteous man hath a care over his beast, but the bowels of the wicked are cruel.
Let it then be understood by you, that God is not so concerned for oxen, as to have had merely a regard to oxen in making that law, for he had mankind in view, and wished to accustom them to equity, that they might not defraud the workman of his hire. For it is not the ox that has the principal part in plowing or treading out the corn, but man, by whose industry the ox himself is set to work. Hence, what he immediately adds — He that ploweth, should plow in hope, etc. is an exposition of the precept, as if he had said, that it extends generally to any kind of recompense for labor.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) Say I these thing as a man?He proceeds to show that his appeal is not to a human principle, but to the recognition by men of a principle which is itself divine. The divinely given Law also says these things.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. As a man Literally, after or according to man, that is, to man’s authority; in distinction from, according to God’s law.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Do I speak these things after the manner of men? Or does the law not also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God cares? Or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because he who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and he who threshes, in hope of partaking.’
But it is not only that he can illustrate this from everyday life, it is also declared in the Scriptures. It is not only man who confirms such a situation, but God. For in the Law of Moses it says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn’ (Deu 25:4 and see 1Ti 5:18). Surely the principle from that is clear. It is not just applicable to oxen, it applies to all who labour. Thus it applies to the labourers in the Gospel. The one who ploughs spiritually should plough in hope of provision, as does the literal ploughman, the one who threshes spiritually should thresh in the hope of partaking. He raises up seed, he should be able to benefit from the seed.
‘Is it for the oxen that God cares?’ This question is not suggesting that God does not care for the oxen. Various laws in the Law (the books of Moses, the Pentateuch) indicate that He does care for dumb animals. His idea expressed here is, ‘Is it only for the oxen that God cares?’ What Paul means is, does He in what He has said only care for the oxen, or does His concern not reach to a wider field, even to human beings? Yes, assuredly so, for God cares even more for human beings than for oxen. Thus it is more necessary that they be provided for when they thresh the spiritual harvest.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Scriptural proof and its application:
v. 8. Say I these things as a man? Or saith not the Law the same also?
v. 9. For it is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
v. 10. Or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that plows should plow in hope, and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.
v. 11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
v. 12. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power, but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ. The apostle by a Scripture-passage here substantiates the principle that the servants of the Lord have a right to expect the material support of their congregations. For he expressly says that he is not arguing the matter as any man might do, in accordance with general human practice, and he adduces a positive divine ordinance. He thus obviates the argument that he is taking examples from daily life to support his claim for the support of pastors. It is written, and therefore stands for all times, in the Law of Moses, in the book which bore the name of Moses, Deu 25:4: Thou shalt not muzzle a threshing ox. See 1Ti 5:18. In the Old Testament text this is one of the passages enjoining humane treatment of animals. Threshing was usually carried on either by having the oxen tread out the kernels from the hulls, Mic 4:12-13, or by hitching them to a heavy sledge which they dragged over the threshing-floor, 2Sa 24:22. The rule prohibited the muzzling of the oxen during this work, and they were thus left free to pick up stalks of grain whenever they became hungry. Paul defends his application of the Old Testament passage to the point in question by asking: Is it for oxen that God is concerned, or does He not by all means say it for our sakes? “It is a proverbial saying, which Paul explains at some length, so that he says: Does God care for the oxen? As though he would say: Though God takes care of the oxen, still He does not have this written for the sake of the oxen, since they cannot read; this is the meaning of Paul: This verse is to be understood not only of the oxen, but of workers in general that they should live of their work. ” So Paul is right in making the application: For it is written for our sakes, on our account, namely, that it is necessary for the plower to plow in hope, and that the thresher do his work in the hope of partaking. Both plowing and threshing is laborious work, and therefore the picture fits into the context well; it exhibits typically the labors of Christian teachers in the language of the statute and under the forms of farm labor. The expectation of partaking of the fruit is due to the laborer, beast or man, and therefore the application is obvious. The hope of him that does his plowing and threshing in the spiritual world is indeed directed forward to a spiritual fruit, Joh 4:36, but since he employs the work of his body, of his physical life, in his calling, he has a right to expect, according to the rule of God, that the faith which follows preaching will also be active in love, and thus the physical needs of spiritual workers will be taken care of in the proper manner.
This deduction the apostle frankly makes: If we unto you sowed spiritual things, is it a great thing, is it too much, that we reap your carnal things? This question strikes the conceit of such Christians as place a high value upon the gifts which they communicate to their pastors, since they themselves place a low valuation upon that which they have received from them. For all the spiritual things that are to be found in the midst of a congregation: the gifts of the Spirit, faith, love, hope, knowledge, zeal, fervency in prayer, etc. , are all the fruit of the Gospel as it is sown by the teaching of the pastor, publicly and privately. Surely the Christian that realizes even faintly the inestimable value of these gifts will not hesitate about making at least an attempt to repay the spiritual blessings by offering the fruit of his hands, since to make a full return is impossible. Luther says: “I do not like to explain such texts as are on our side, as servants of the Word. It may seem, when such texts are properly expounded before the people, as if it were on account of greed. But it is necessary that the people be instructed in order that they may know what kind of honor and support they owe their teachers under obligation from God.”
Paul now sets forth his own case in a still stronger light by comparing himself with other teachers who made use of the support of the congregations: If others be partakers of this power, make use of their right over you, why not we rather? Paul had a better claim to share in their domain, in a way to exercise dominion over them, as the first teacher of the Corinthian congregation, since he was the man who broke the ground and did the planting. But, he says, we did not make use of this right, not because he was too proud or because he did not dare, but because he wanted to bear everything in silence, he chose to endure without complaining, in order that he might not offer a hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. In the Gentile world the acceptance of pay by a wandering teacher was explained as avarice, a fact which naturally harmed the cause. Besides, Paul did not want to be tied to any certain congregation, since his call included the care of all the congregations founded by him and the establishing of others as occasion offered. Here was a fine proof of Paul’s unselfishness, on account of which he even waived a right which was in his hands, lest he be misunderstood and the preaching of the Gospel suffer in consequence.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 9:8 . Transition to the proof from Scripture of the above .
It is not supposed surely that I speak this (namely, what I say of that apostolic prerogative in applying to it the rule of these ordinary analogies) after the manner of a man (according to mere human judgment, as a purely human rule, and not a divinely given one)? or the law too, does it not say this ? Is it silent concerning this principle? Does it contain no statement of it?
.] The opposite of this is . Comp on Rom 3:5 ; Gal 3:15 . Theodoret gives the idea correctly: , .
] as in 1Co 9:6 . “I should not speak this after man’s way of thinking, if it were the case that the law contained nothing of it.” This is the affirmative sense of the interrogative phrase.
] too ; the law is conceived of as the higher authority coming in over and above the individual .
] negatives the ; see the critical remarks. Comp 1Co 9:7 .
As to the difference to be noticed between and , see on Rom 3:19 ; Joh 8:43 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
Ver. 8. Or saith not the law ] Not of nations only, as 1Co 9:7 , but of God expressly, Verbis non solum disertis, sed et exertis?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8. ] Am I speaking these things merely according to human judgment of what is right? Or (see note, 1Co 9:6 ) does the law too not say these things?
1Co 9:8-10 a . . . .; “Am I saying these things as any man might do” in accordance with human practice (as just seen in 7)? ., in contrast with what ; cf. Gal 3:15 ff. This dialectic use of , or , in a train of questions, is very Pauline; recommends the second alternative; cf. Rom 4:9 , Luk 12:41 . “The law” is abolished as a means of obtaining salvation (Rom 3:19 ff., etc.); it remains a revelation of truth and right (Rom 7:12 ff.), and P. draws from it guidance for Christian conduct; cf. 1Co 14:34 , Rom 13:8 ff., and (comprehensively)Rom 8:4Rom 8:4 . The ethics of the N.T. are those of the Old, enhanced by Christ (see Mat 5:17 ff.). Paul speaks however here, somewhat distantly, of the “law of Moses ” ( cf. 1Co 9:20 f., 1Co 10:2 ); but of “the law of Christ ” in Gal 6:2 ( cf. Joh 1:17 ; Joh 8:17 ; Joh 10:34 ; Joh 15:25 ). . . ., “Thou shalt not muzzle a threshing ox,” cited to the same effect in 1Ti 5:18 , with fut [1305] reproducing the Heb. lo’ with impf [1306] of emphatic prohibition. Deu 25:4 , detached where it stands, belongs to a series of Mosaic commands enjoining humane treatment of animals, regarded as being in some sense a part of the sacred community: cf. Exo 20:10 ; Exo 23:12 ; Exo 23:19 , Deu 22:4 ; Deu 22:6 f., Deu 22:10 . Corn was threshed either by the feet of cattle (Mic 4:12 f.), or by a sledge driven over the threshing-floor (2Sa 24:22 ). . . .; “Is it for the oxen that God cares, or on our account, by all means, does He say (it)?” The argumentative ( cf. Rom 3:9 , Luk 4:23 ), “on every ground” slightly diff [1307] in 1Co 9:22 , more so in 1Co 5:10 : not that “God is concerned wholly ( exclusively ) for us” in this rule; but on every account a provision made for the beasts in man’s service must hold good, fortiori , for God’s proper servants; cf. Mat 6:26 ff., also 1Co 10:31 , 1Co 12:12 . , emphatically repeated, signifies not men as against oxen, but nos evangelii ministros (Est.) in analogy to oxen; the right of Christ’s ministers “to eat and drink” is safeguarded by the principle that gives the ox his provender out of the corn he treads. Paul’s method in such interpretations is radically diff [1308] from that of Philo, who says, , . , De Victim. offer. , 1: Philo destroys the historical sense; Paul extracts its moral principle.
[1305] future tense.
[1306]mpf. imperfect tense.
[1307] difference, different, differently.
[1308] difference, different, differently.
1Co 9:10 b . ( cf. 1Th 2:20 , for in affirm. reply) . . .: “Yes, it was written on our account ( cf. Rom 4:23 f.) (to wit), that the ploughing (ox) ought to plough in hope, and the threshing (ox) in hope of partaking” ( ). The explanatory clause ( cf. 1Co 1:5 ; 1Co 1:26 , 1Co 4:9 and note) restates and amplifies the previous quotation. The Ap. is not explaining how the command came to be given (“because,” E.V [1309] ), but unfolding the principle that lies in it. The right of the ox in threshing also belongs in equity to the ox at the plough ; all contributors to the harvest are included, whether at an earlier or later stage. , emphatic debet (Vg [1310] ): the hope of participation in the fruit is due to the labourer beast or man. The moral, as applied to Christian teachers, is obvious; it embraces the successive stages of the common work ( cf. 1Co 3:9 , Joh 4:36 ). (sometimes “to sow”; so El. and some others here) contains the root of the Lat. aro and older Eng. ear .
[1309] English Version.
[1310] Latin Vulgate Translation.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 9:8-14
8I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is ?Hebrews 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. 11If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? 14So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
1Co 9:8
NASB”according to human judgment”
NKJV”as a mere man”
NRSV”on human authority”
TEV”to limit myself to these everyday examples”
NJB”merely worldly wisdom”
The Greek text has “not according to man” (i.e., anthrpos, which refers to humans). Paul uses these contrasting phrases several times (cf. 1Co 3:3; 1Co 9:8; 1Co 15:32; Rom 3:5; Gal 1:11; Gal 3:15). It was his idiomatic way of contrasting earthly human ways with his new Spirit-led (i.e., Jesus’ teaching or Spirit’s insight) way of thinking and acting.
1Co 9:9 “it is written in the Law of Moses” The Jewish way of settling the question was with an authoritative quote, if possibly from the writings of Moses (i.e., Gen. – Deut.); therefore, Paul quotes Deu 25:4 (cf. 1Ti 5:18).
SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL’S VIEWS OF THE MOSAIC LAW
“You shall not muzzle the ox” This is a quote from the Septuagint of Deu 25:4. The term “muzzle” is phimsies, which occurs in the Greek manuscripts P46, , A, B3, C, Db,c, K, L, P, and most later minuscule manuscripts. This is also the term used in Paul’s quote of the same text in 1Ti 5:18.
However, the UBS4 editors preferred the variant kmseis, which also means “muzzle,” found in MSS B*, D*, F, and G. Their reasoning was that the less-used word (possibly a slang term) was probably original because the other one was expected from the Septuagint and the quote in 1 Timothy so why would a scribe have changed it? The term chosen as original makes no interpretive difference, but it does illustrate the textual principles by which modern textual critics evaluate Koine Greek manuscripts in an attempt to recover the original wording of the autograph. See Appendix Two.
SPECIAL TOPIC: TEXTUAL CRITICISM
NASB”God is not concerned about oxen, is He”
NKJV”Is it oxen God is concerned about”
NRSV”Is it about oxen God is concerned”
TEV”Now, is God concerned about oxen”
NJB”Is it about oxen that God is concerned here”
1Co 9:9-10 show how an OT text was expanded (i.e., to draw out the significance or application) to meet the needs of a new day (cf. Rom 4:23-24; Rom 15:4; 1Co 9:10; 1Co 10:6; 1Co 10:11). The OT exhibits special care for animals (cf. Exo 21:33; Exo 21:35; Exo 27:10-13; Exo 23:5; Exo 23:12; Duet. 5:14; 22:4). Jesus alludes to this care of animals (cf. Luk 13:15; Luk 14:5, where He applies the “light and heavy” rabbinical principle). This is not to imply that God does not care about animals, but that He also cares about people, and in this context, gospel workers (cf. 1Ti 5:18). This is similar to Mat 6:26-34. Jesus uses God’s provisions in nature as a way of asserting God’s provision for humanity made in His image. This was a typical rabbinical technique known as “lesser to greater” or “light and heavy,” which was one of Hillel’s principles (cf. Aboth. de Rab. Nathan XXXVII and Tosefta Sanhedrin c. 7). Remember, Gamaliel was Paul’s rabbinical teacher (cf. Act 5:34; Act 22:3). See Appendix Three (Rabbinical Hermeneutics) in Hebrews at www.freebiblecommentary.org .
1Co 9:10
NASB”Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written”
NKJV”Or does He say it altogether for us? For our sakes no doubt, this is written”
NRSV”Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake”
TEV”Didn’t he really means us when he said that? Of course that was written for us”
NJB”or is it not said entirely for our sake? Clearly it was written for our sake”
Several times Paul asserts that the OT was written as an example for NT believers (cf. Rom 4:23-24; Rom 15:4; 1Co 9:10; 1Co 10:6; 1Co 10:11). Paul’s rabbinical training taught him to apply the Law to current situations. Here he is using the rabbinical argument called “light and heavy” or the “lesser to the greater.”
In the context of Deu 25:4 this application would have been unknown and unnecessary. The hermeneutical question is, “Was Paul using the original intent of the inspired writer?” The answer is clearly, no! But is he using a valid application of a principle? Paul is inspired! He sees truth at a level we cannot! However, we are not inspired, but illumined by the Spirit. Modern interpreters cannot reproduce the hermeneutical method of the NT authors. Therefore, it is best to let them speak, but restrict ourselves to the historical-grammatical approach, which seeks the intent of the original author as the determinant meaning, but allowing many applications which are related to the original intent! See the Special Topics, Illumination and Inspiration, at the beginning to 1 Corinthians 2.
1Co 9:11 “If. . .if” These are both first class conditional sentences, which are assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes.
The real question is who are the others who claimed the right to have the Corinthian church support them? Was it traveling false teachers or those who were part of the local leadership? It probably refers to the other local leaders who would not allow the church to support them (cf. J. B. Phillips translation).
“sowed. . .reap” The OT agricultural setting of harvest becomes a spiritual principle (cf. Job 4:8; Pro 22:8; Hos 8:7; Hag 1:6; Joh 4:37; 1Co 9:11; 2Co 9:6; 2Co 9:10; Gal 6:7-9).
“material things” This is literally ta sarkika, “the fleshly things,” but not in a sinful sense, rather in a physical sense as that which humans need to survive in this world (i.e., water, food, shelter, clothing, etc. cf. Rom 15:27).
1Co 9:12 “If” This is another first class conditional sentence. Other leaders were exercising the right (i.e., exousia) to be materially compensated.
“do we not more” This is an allusion to the fact that Paul started this church. He was their spiritual father (cf. 1Co 4:15). Now they were rejecting his spiritual rights (1Co 9:11; 1Co 9:14; Rom 15:27), but allowing others to demand material compensation.
“but we endure all things” This is a metaphorical use of the Greek word for “roof,” meaning “to cover,” “to conceal,” or “to endure” (cf. 1Co 13:7).
“hindrance” This was a strong military term. The word was used for breaking up a road to keep an enemy from using it.
“the gospel of Christ” The term “gospel” is literally “good news.” It involves several aspects.
1. the initial bad news of mankind’s sin and rebellion
2. God’s gracious provisions to deal with human sin (i.e., the death of Christ)
3. the open invitation for any or all to accept God’s provision by repentance and faith
This good news about Jesus involves three aspects.
1. It is a person to welcome (i.e., Jesus).
2. It is truths about that person to believe (i.e., the NT).
3. It is a life which emulates that person (i.e., the Christlike life).
If any one of these three aspects is depreciated the gospel is damaged!
1Co 9:13 “those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple” This refers to OT priests and Levites (cf. Lev 7:6; Lev 7:8-10; Lev 7:14; Lev 7:28-36; Deu 18:1). Paul used a term that was used in the Septuagint for priestly work (cf. Num 3:7; Num 8:15) as well as work in general (cf. Gen 2:5; Gen 2:15; Gen 3:23; Gen 4:2; Gen 4:12; Gen 29:27). Paul saw his gospel ministry as priestly service (cf. Rom 15:16).
1Co 9:14 “So also the Lord directed” This must refer to Jesus’ words in Mat 10:10 and Luk 10:7. Paul always tried to allude to Jesus’ teachings on a subject when possible.
Say I, &c. The question is introduced by me (1Co 9:4), and there is an Ellipsis of “only”.
as-according to. Greek. kata. App-104.
man. Greek. anthropos (App-123.), i.e. according to the universal practice of men.
the same also = also these things.
8.] Am I speaking these things merely according to human judgment of what is right? Or (see note, 1Co 9:6) does the law too not say these things?
1Co 9:8. ) also. Not only do I not speak this as a man [according to mere human modes of thought], but with the approbation of the law itself.
1Co 9:8
1Co 9:8
Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same?-It is not merely in accordance with human judgment of what is fitting that he lays down the principle that the laborer has a right to a living wage. There is a higher authority than that, for God had ordained it in the law.
as: 1Co 7:40, Rom 6:19, 1Th 2:13, 1Th 4:8
or: 1Co 14:34, Isa 8:20, Rom 3:31
Reciprocal: Rom 3:5 – I speak Rom 7:1 – them that
1Co 9:8-9. To show that he was not making these arguments on his personal authority only, Paul quotes from Deu 25:4 in regard to oxen. Before the days of machinery, small grain was piled down on a floor and the beast was driven round over it to break the husk from the grain. It was natural for the ox to help himself to the feed, and the command was not to muzzle him to keep him from eating the grain. Doth God take care for oxen?’ The law against muzzling the ox was in force literally, but the circumstance was used as an example for something more important than the comfort of brute beasts.
1Co 9:8. Do I speak these things after the manner of men?drawing my conclusions from human usage only?or saith not the law also the same!
A second argument produced by the apostle for the people’s cheerful maintenance of the ministers of the gospel, is taken from the Levitical law: Say I these things as a man; or saith not the law the same also?
As if he had said, “I do not speak this only rationally, as a thing very agreeable to the light of nature, and the law of nations, but the Levitical law says the same. For when God, in Deu 25:4 forbids to muzzle the mouth of the ox, who by hard labour treadeth out the corn with his feet, his design therein is more than the bare taking care of the ox; for thereby he shows in general what equity should be used in the just rewarding of all men that labour for us; and in particular the spiritual labourers, and such as plough, and sow, and thresh, in the spiritual husbandry, should labour, in hope of a livelihood and subsistence, and eat their bread when they have earned it. If all men are encouraged to work, by a just expectation of the fruit of their own just labours, why should not the ministers of the word meet with the like encouragement, which all mankind look upon as their just due?
1Co 9:8-10. Say I these things as a man Have I only human authority and reasons for what I say? or saith not the law The revealed will of God; the same? For it is written Deu 25:4, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox, &c. But shalt allow the poor animal to feed while it is labouring for thee, in the midst of food; a circumstance in which its hunger would be peculiarly painful. It is well known, that the people of the East did not thresh their corn as we do; but they pressed out the grain, by causing oxen to tread on the ears, a custom which is still retained in several of the eastern nations. And, at this day, as Bengelius observes, horses tread out the corn in some parts of Germany. Doth God take care for oxen Was this precept given merely for their sakes? had he not a further meaning in it? did he not intend to show hereby what equity should be used in rewarding those that labour for us? For our sakes no doubt this is written Not to oblige us to obey those laws, but to teach us to exercise humanity and equity toward those we employ or deal with. This precept, concerning oxen, being introduced in the law, immediately after precepts enjoining justice and mercy in punishments, it was certainly intended to impress the Israelites with a sense of the obligations of justice and humanity toward rational creatures, as the apostle here affirms. That he that plougheth should plough in hope Of reaping; and he that thresheth in hope Should not be disappointed of the fruit of his labour; that is, any one that is employed to work for us, should do it in hope of receiving a meet reward for his pains, whereby he may be encouraged in his work, and should be partaker of his hope Should afterward receive the reward hoped for. And so ought they who labour faithfully in Gods husbandry.
Vv. 8, 9. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
God had commanded the Jews, Deu 25:4, that when harvest came, the ox, while treading the corn which it had contributed to produce by the painful labour of ploughing, should not be muzzled, and thereby prevented from enjoying, conjointly with man, the fruit of its toil. Among the heathen no scruple was felt about acting differently, and hence God expressly forbids this practice to His people. God’s object in acting thus was evidently to cultivate in the hearts of His people feelings of justice and equity. This moral object appears not only from the prohibition in itself, but also from all the other injunctions which accompany it in chaps. 24 and 25 of Deuteronomy: the command to restore to the poor man his garment, taken as a pledge, immediately after sunset (Deu 24:10-13); to pay to the poor labourer his wages on the same evening (Deu 24:14-15); not to put the child to death with the guilty father (Deu 24:16-18); always to leave, when gathering the harvest, a gleaning for widows and strangers (Deu 24:19-22); not to subject the criminal to more than forty stripes (Deu 25:1-3), etc. Does not this whole context show clearly enough what was the object of the prohibition quoted here? It was not from solicitude for oxen that God made this prohibition; there were other ways of providing for the nourishment of these animals. By calling on the Israelites to exercise gentleness and gratitude, even toward a poor animal, it is clear that God desired to inculcate on them, with stronger reason, the same way of acting toward the human workmen whose help they engaged in their labour. It was the duties of moral beings to one another, that God wished to impress by this precept.
The expression: according to [as a] man, is opposed to the law, which possesses a Divine authority. Here the apostle employs the term , to declare, ordain, whereas in speaking of his own saying, he had simply used the word , to express.
Vv. 9. We ought probably to prefer the reading of the Vaticanus, , to that of the T. R., . The meaning is the same, but the second reading is no doubt derived from the LXX. The verb signifies more specially to close the mouth by a muzzle, while signifies to close the mouth in general, by any means whatever.
The mode of treading out corn in the East is this: over the ears spread out on the threshing-floor there are made to pass horses or oxen, or sometimes a small wain drawn by these animals, and on which the driver stands.
When Paul asks if God takes care for oxen, it is clear that he is not speaking of God as Creator, but of God as giving the law (1Co 9:8), in ferend lege, as Calvin says; for in the domain of creation and Providence He does not neglect even the smallest sparrow (Calvin). As we have seen, it was on the heart of the Israelite that He sought to impress this prohibition.
Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same? [Paul asks these two questions to show that while he has appealed to human authority, he has also divine authority for the principle which he asserts.]
Verse 8
As a man; on my own human authority.
1Co 9:8-10. These things: about the shepherd and the vinedresser. Not as a man, i.e. merely asserting a principle current among men, (cp 1Co 15:32; Gal 3:15,) does Paul speak; but says that which the Law also says.
Moses: an appeal to the authority of the great Lawgiver; to whose lips the following injunction, taken word for word from Deu 25:4, LXX., is expressly (Deu 5:1; Deu 27:1) attributed. It is quoted also, in a similar connection, in 1Ti 5:18. It refers to oxen treading out grain with their feet, or dragging over it a threshing machine. Both modes are still common in the east: and the injunction of Moses is observed by both Christians and Mohammedans. See Thompson, Land and Book ch. xxxv.
Is it for the oxen etc.; must be interpreted to mean, not, does God care for oxen? but, was it His care for them that prompted these words.
Altogether: not, for us only; but that every letter of Deu 25:4 was written because of us, viz. for those who labor to provide spiritual food for others. Paul then justifies the question of 1Co 9:10 a, by asserting, and giving the Divine motive for, that which the question clearly implies.
Because in hope etc.: a broad principle which moved God to have Deu 25:4 written one applicable both to gospel workers and to all who labor to provide food of any kind for others. Hence the change from the first person, because of us, to the third, he who ploughs.
Ought: an obligation resting on those for whom he works. It is right that a ploughman’s toil be lightened by a prospect of reward.
He who thrashes; ought to do so in hope.
Of partaking: sharing the grain he thrashes out, according to the custom, everywhere prevalent in the early stages of civilization, of payment in kind.
But the ploughman ought not to have to wait for this. Hence, of him, the word partake is not used.
Deu 25:4 is very conspicuous for its unexpected, sudden, and momentary reference to cattle, amid matter quite different. For this there must be some reason more important than the mere well-being of cattle. Indeed, all injunctions of kindness to animals are more for our good than theirs. For he who needlessly hurts them inflicts by doing so a far deeper wound in his own moral nature. Moreover, the very insignificance of a mouthful of corn reveals some deeper motive for these words. The open mouths of the cattle treading out the grain proclaim in plain language the great principle that they who by their toil obtain food for others ought themselves to share it. And, of this principle, the gospel laborer is a special and very conspicuous case. For his remuneration is voluntary; and therefore needs to be supported by some great principle. Therefore, if, as Paul and his readers believed the words of Moses are the voice of God, since whatever God says He says in view of all its future applications, we cannot doubt that He moved Moses to write these words with a definite reference to laborers like Paul.
Notice carefully that these words, spoken and written (Deu 27:1; Deu 31:9) by Moses, are assumed by Paul, as a matter not open to doubt, to be the voice of God, and to have been written because of us, a purpose far above Moses’ thought. This implies that through the lips and pen of Moses’ God spoke. See my Romans, Dissertation iii.
9:8 {6} Say I these things {h} as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
(6) Secondly, he brings forth the authority of God’s institution by an argument of comparison.
(h) Have I not better ground than the common custom of men?
Second, the Old Testament supported this point. God made special provision in the Mosaic Law for the oxen that served people by threshing their grain (Deu 25:4). In so doing, Paul said, God was teaching His concern for the maintenance of all who serve others, not just oxen. [Note: See Jan L. Verbruggen, "Of Muzzles and Oxen: Deuteronomy 25:4 and 1 Corinthians 9:9," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:4 (December 2006):699-711, for a study of various ways Paul may have understood and used Deuteronomy 25:4.]
"Keep in mind that, for the most part, the Greeks despised manual labor. They had slaves to do manual labor so that the citizens could enjoy sports, philosophy, and leisure. The Jews, of course, magnified honest labor." [Note: Wiersbe, 1:599.]
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)