10<\/strong>. he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope<\/em> ] In this verse we may observe (1) that the word translated treadeth out<\/em> in 1Co 9:9<\/span> is here rendered threshing, because the usual Eastern mode of threshing corn was by means of oxen. See Art “Agriculture” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible<\/em>, and Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopdia<\/em>. The flail appears to nave been occasionally used for the lighter kinds of grain (Rth 2:17<\/span>), and threshing instruments are occasionally mentioned in the later books of the Old Testament, e.g. 2Sa 24:22 ; 1Ch 21:23<\/span>; Isa 41:15<\/span>. And (2) we find in many MSS. the reading ‘ that he that thresheth<\/em> may do so in hope of partaking<\/em>.’ The text is in some confusion here.<\/p>\n Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? – <\/B>The word altogether (<\/SPAN><\/span> pantos) cannot mean that this was the sole and only design of the law, to teach that ministers of the gospel were entitled to support; for:<\/P> (1) This would be directly contrary to the law itself, which had some direct and undoubted reference to oxen;<\/P> (2) The scope of the argument here does not require this interpretation, since the whole object will be met by supposing that this settled a principle of humanity and equity in the divine law, according to which it was proper that ministers should have a support; and,<\/P> (3) The word altogether (<\/SPAN><\/span> pantos) does not of necessity require this interpretation. It may be rendered chiefly, mainly, principally, or doubtless; Luk 4:23<\/span>, Ye will surely (<\/SPAN><\/span> pantos certainly, surely, doubtless) say unto me this proverb, etc.; Act 18:21<\/span>, I must by all means (<\/SPAN><\/span> pantos, certainly, surely) keep this feast; Act 21:22<\/span>, The multitude must needs (<\/SPAN><\/span> pantos, will certainly, surely, inevitably) come together, etc.; Act 28:4<\/span>, No doubt (<\/SPAN><\/span> pantos) this man is a murderer, etc. The word here, therefore, means that the principle stated in the law about the oxen was so broad and humane, that it might certainly, surely, particularly be regarded as applicable to the case under consideration. An important and material argument might be drawn from it; an argument from the less to the greater. The precept enjoined justice, equity, humanity; and that was more applicable to the case of the ministers of the gospel than to the case of oxen.<\/P> For our sakes … – <\/B>To show that the laws and requirements of God are humane, kind, and equitable; not that Moses had Paul or any other minister in his eye, but the principle was one that applied particularly to this case.<\/P> That he that ploweth … – <\/B>The Greek in this place would be more literally and more properly rendered, For (<\/SPAN><\/span> hoti) he that ploweth ought (<\/SPAN><\/span> opheilei) to plow in hope; that is, in hope of reaping a harvest, or of obtaining success in his labors; and the sense is, The man who cultivates the earth, in order that he may be excited to industry and diligence, ought to have a reasonable prospect that he shall himself be permitted to enjoy the fruit of his labors. This is the case with those who do plow; and if this should be the case with those who cultivate the earth, it is as certainly reasonable that those who labor in Gods husbandry, and who devote their strength to his service, should be encouraged with a reasonable prospect of success and support.<\/P> And that he that thresheth … – <\/B>This sentence, in the Greek, is very elliptical and obscure; but the sense is, evidently, He that thresheth ought to partake of his hope; that is, of the fruits of his hope, or of the result of his labor. It is fair and right that he should enjoy the fruits of his toil. So in Gods husbandry; it is right and proper that they who toil for the advancement of his cause should be supported and rewarded. The same sentiment is expressed in 2Ti 2:6<\/span>, The husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 10<\/span>. And he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of<\/B><\/I> <\/B>his hope.<\/B><\/I>] Instead of , ‘ , many of the best MSS. and versions read the passage thus: ‘ And he who thresheth in hope<\/I> of partaking<\/I>. “The words , which are omitted by the above, are,” says Bp. Pearce, “superfluous, if not wrong; for men do not live in hope<\/I> to partake of their hope<\/I>, but to partake of what was the object<\/I> and end<\/I> of their hope<\/I>. When these words are left out, the former and latter sentence will be both of a piece, and more resembling each other: for may be understood after the first , as well as after the last.” Griesbach has left the words in question out of the text.<\/P><\/p>\n Not that the law, Deu 25:4<\/span>, did primarily reveal Gods will for the maintenance of ministers; for undoubtedly it did primarily oblige them, according to the letter of it, not to deal cruelly and unmercifully with the beasts they made use of; but as they took them off from getting their food, by taking them up to tread out corn for them; so, while they did it, they should not starve them, but give thent leave moderately to eat of it. But (saith the apostle) the reason of it doth much more oblige with respect to men, especially such men as are employed in a ministry for your souls. <\/P> That he that plougheth should plough in hope; that as he who plougheth for another, plougheth in hope to get bread for himself, from the wages for which he covenanteth; <\/P> and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope: and so also doth the thresher thresh in hope: so we that are the Lords ploughmen, working together with him (though in a far inferior degree of causation) in the ploughing up the fallow grounds of mens hearts, and sowing the seed of righteousness in mens souls; and the Lords threshers, by our labours, exhortations, arguments, &c., beating the fruits of good works, to the glory of God, out of those amongst whom we labour; might also labour in some hope of a livelihood for ourselves, while we are doing the Lords work and his peoples. <\/P> <\/p>\n 10. altogether<\/B>Join this with”saith.” “Does he (the divine lawgiver) by all meanssay it for our sakes?” It would be untrue, that God saith italtogether<\/I> (in the sense of solely) for our<\/I> sakes. Butit is true, that He by all means saith it<\/I> for our sakes as theultimate object in the lower world. GROTIUS,however, translates, “mainly” or “especially,”instead of altogether.<\/I> <\/P> that<\/B>“meaningthat” [ALFORD];literally, “because.” <\/P> should plough<\/B>ought<\/I>to plough in hope. The obligation rests with the people not to lettheir minister labor without remuneration. <\/P> he that thresheth in hopeshould be partaker of his hope<\/B>The oldest manuscript versionsand Fathers read, “He that thresheth (should<\/I> or oughtto thresh<\/I>) in the hope of partaking” (namely, of thefruit of his threshing<\/I>). “He that plougheth,”spiritually, is the first planter of a church in a place (compare1Co 3:6<\/span>; 1Co 3:9<\/span>);”he that thresheth,” the minister who tends a churchalready planted.<\/P><\/p>\n Or saith he it altogether for our sakes<\/strong>,…. That is, God says this, or delivers out this law, forbidding the muzzling the ox, while it treads out the corn; not merely for the sake of the ox, but chiefly for the sake of men; and so Jarchi upon the place says, that the ox is mentioned, , “to express man”; and so another of the Jewish writers m interprets the law in De 22:6<\/span>. “Thou shalt not take the dam with the young”;<\/p>\n “the intention of the command is, not to have mercy on birds, “but for the sake of men”, he (God) says this, whom he would accustom to meekness and compassion:”<\/p>\n and particularly this is here said, for the sake of ministers of the Gospel, who for their spiritual strength, and labours in their work, may be compared to oxen; see Eze 1:10<\/span>. This law is elsewhere produced by the apostle, and urged in favour of the maintenance of ministers, as here, 1Ti 5:17<\/span> and therefore<\/p>\n for our sakes no doubt it is written<\/strong>; to teach men, that as any workmen are not to be deprived of proper sustenance, so neither they that labour in the word and doctrine:<\/p>\n that he that ploweth should plow in hope<\/strong>; of enjoying the fruit of his labours:<\/p>\n and that he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope<\/strong>; of having a supply out of that he is threshing.<\/p>\n m R. Menuachcm apud Ainsworth on Deut. xxii. 7. & Drusium in loc.<\/p>\n He that plougheth <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Late verb <\/SPAN><\/span>, to plough, for the old <\/SPAN><\/span> from <\/SPAN><\/span> (plough), in LXX and rare in papyri.<\/P> In hope of partaking <\/B> (‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). The infinitive <\/SPAN><\/span> is not repeated nor is <\/SPAN><\/span> though it is understood, “He that thresheth ought to thresh in hope of partaking.” He that ploughs hardly refers to the ox at the plough as he that threshes does. The point is that all the workers (beast or man) share in the fruit of the toil. <\/P> <\/p>\n Altogether [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Better, as Rev., in margin, as He doubtless doth, or, as American Rev., assuredly. <\/P> In hope [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Rom 8:21<\/span>. Resting on hope. Compare Aeschylus : “When hope has raised me up on strength [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>; i e. elated me with confidence” (” Choephoroe, ” 407). <\/P> He that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. The text is in error here. The true reading is oJ ajlown ejp’ ejlpidi tou metecein and; he that thresheth to thresh in hope of partaking.<\/P> <\/p>\n 1) “Or<\/strong> saith he it altogether for our sakes?<\/strong> (e di hemar pantos legie?) “Or does He say it altogether because of us?” Or “because of His concern or care for our every need?” If God cares for oxen, is it not surely true that He too cares for our needs?<\/p>\n 2) “For our sakes, no doubt this is written.”<\/strong> (di hemas gar egraphe) “For on account of us or because of us (without reasonable doubt) it was written.” Paul was answering the gainsayers against his apostolic missionary ministry.<\/p>\n 3) That he that ploweth should plow in hope.<\/strong> (hoti opheilei ep elpidi ho arotrion arotrian) “Because the one plowing ought to plow in hope” – In expectancy, in optimism, in certain faith of pay for his labors.<\/p>\n 4) “And that he that thresheth in hope. <\/strong> (kai ho aloon ep’ elpidi) “And that the one threshing on or threshing away in hope, expectancy” – The thresher, the plowman, and the landlord must equitably share in the labors.<\/p>\n 5) “Should<\/strong> be partaker of his hope.<\/strong> metechein) “That one ought also to actively, progressively partake of, or share in his plowing and threshing hope.” There should be no mirage or rainbow or empty cloud at the end of his labors of the day, Joh 4:36<\/span>; 1Sa 30:24<\/span>.<\/p>\n 10. Because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope. There is a twofold reading in this passage, even in the Greek manuscripts, but the one that is more generally received is — He that thrasheth, in hope of partaking of his hope At the same time, the one that does not repeat the term hope twice in the second clause appears simpler, and more natural. (485) Hence, if I were at liberty to choose, I would prefer to read it thus: He that ploweth should plow in hope, and he that thrasheth in hope of participating As, however, the most of the Greek manuscripts agree in the former reading, and as the meaning remains the same, I have not ventured to make change upon it. Now he expounds the preceding injunction, and hence he says, that it is an unjust thing that the husbandman should lay out his pains to no purpose in plowing and thrashing, but that the end of his labor is the hope of receiving the fruits. As it is so, we may infer, that this belongs to oxen also, but Paul’s intention was to extend it farther, and apply it principally to men. Now, the husbandman is said to be a partaker of his hope, when he enjoys the produce which he has obtained when reaping, but hoped for when plowing. <\/p>\n (485) The common reading is — καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν τὢς ἐνπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν επ ᾿ ελπίδι, and he that thrasheth in hope should be a partaker of his hope In the other reading, the επ ᾿ ἐλπίδι ( in hope) are omitted. The latter is the reading in five ancient and three later MSS. The common reading is construed by Bloomfield as follows — καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν ( ὀφείλει ἀλοᾷν) επ ᾿ ἐλπίδι ( τοῦ) μετέχειν τὢς ελπίδος αὐτοῦ “And he that thrasheth ought to thrash in hope to partake of (the fruits of) his hope.” — Ed <\/p>\n (10) That he that ploweth should plow in hope.<\/strong>There is considerable variation in the MSS. here. The best rendering of the text is, that the plougher<\/em> is bound to plough in hope, and the thresher <\/em>(to thresh<\/em>) in the hope of having his share.<\/em> It has been much discussed whether this passage is to be taken literally as referring to actual ploughing and threshing, or whether we are to give them a spiritual significance. I think it is, perhaps, best to take them literally, as expressing the sanction given by God in the legal provision previously mentioned to the divine principle which unites earthly labour and reward; and the argument, of course, is that this principle applies fortiori<\/em> to the higher work of a spiritual nature; and this application is brought out clearly in the next verse.<\/p>\n 10<\/strong>. <\/strong> Altogether<\/strong> , wholly; <\/em> not meaning that the law speaks exclusively <\/em> for men, but completely, <\/em> and without defect of application. <\/p>\n Plougheth<\/strong> In God’s spiritual <\/em> husbandry, as appears from the following verse. In hope Sustained by the Church, the minister is cheered in hope of a blessed result of his labours. <\/p>\n Thresheth<\/strong> Both the earlier and the later labourer in the spiritual field. <\/p>\n In hope<\/strong> Cheered by the same anticipation as the plougher, the thresher should be partaker of his<\/strong>, the plougher’s, hope<\/strong> namely, the crop.<\/p>\n 1Co 9:10<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Altogether<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> On the whole. <\/em>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, <\/em>than entirely, <\/em>or altogether; <\/em>though that sense is more frequent. See Mintert, and Vigerus. <\/p>\n 1Co 9:10<\/span> . Or<\/em> since that cannot be supposed is this<\/em> the true state of the case, that He saith it altogether for our sakes<\/em> ?<\/p>\n ] in the sense of in any case, wholly, absolutely<\/em> , as in 1Co 5:10<\/span> , 1Co 9:22<\/span> ; see the remarks there. Comp Act 18:21<\/span> ; Act 21:22<\/span> ; Act 28:4<\/span> , also Rom 3:9<\/span> . The rendering: of course, certainly<\/em> , is equally admissible as in Luk 4:23<\/span> , but would suit an affirmative statement better. Theophylact says well (following Chrysostom): , .<\/p>\n ] cannot mean men<\/em> in general (so most expositors, Hofmann, too, concurring), but must refer to the Christian teachers<\/em> (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Estius, Rckert, Neander, al<\/em> [1429] ); this necessarily follows both from the whole connection of the argument and from the <\/em><\/strong> in 1Co 9:11<\/span> , since it is an entirely arbitrary assumption to make the latter word have a different subject from our <\/em><\/strong> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> ] sc<\/em> [1430] supplied from the foregoing clause, not <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> (Olshausen).<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> as in 1Co 9:9<\/span> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> ] namely, the utterance of the law cited in 1Co 9:9<\/span> .<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> ] cannot have an argumentative<\/em> force (Luther, Beza, Calvin, and others, among whom is Neander); nor is it the simple that<\/em> 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<\/em> merely (Castalio, Pott, de Wette, Osiander, al<\/em> [1431] , comp also Hofmann), setting forth the typico-allegorical contents<\/em> 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<\/em> (is bound to thrash) in hope of having his share<\/em> . The and the <\/em><\/strong> is thus no other than the gospel teacher<\/em> , as necessarily follows from ; the passage of the law now under consideration gives occasion to his being figuratively<\/em> designated (see as early expositors as Chrysostom and Theophylact) in accordance with the idea of the (1Co 3:9<\/span> ), without, however, the two words being intended to signify different<\/em> 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<\/em> , therefore, the meaning is: that the teacher, namely, is bound<\/em> [1433] to exercise his office of teaching, in hope to have profit therefrom<\/em> . , Chrysostom. It is a mistake to apply the words, as is commonly done, to the literal<\/em> plougher and thrasher. Such a maxim of ordinary life would, it is plain, be wholly foreign to the typico-allegorical<\/em> 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<\/em> . Nor is it simply an application<\/em> of the moral idea<\/em> 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<\/em> to the spiritual. Theophylact puts it rightly: . . .<\/p>\n ] has the chief emphasis, and belongs to <\/em><\/strong> , being its conditioning basis (as in Rom 4:18<\/span> ; Rom 8:21<\/span> ; Tit 1:2<\/span> ). What<\/em> hope the plougher is to cherish, is self-evident, namely, to enjoy with others the fruits of his ploughing; the reference of the figure<\/em> is obvious from the context.<\/p>\n ] to wit, of the grain thrashed. As to the genitive<\/em> , see Rom 5:2<\/span> , al<\/em> [1434]<\/p>\n [1429] l.<\/em> and others; and other passages; and other editions.<\/p>\n [1430] c.<\/em> scilicet<\/em> .<\/p>\n [1431] l.<\/em> and others; and other passages; and other editions.<\/p>\n [1433] , debet<\/em> (Vulgate). Hofmann goes against linguistic usage in turning it into the sense of being entitled<\/em> , as if he read , or something to that effect.<\/p>\n [1434] l.<\/em> and others; and other passages; and other editions.<\/p>\n 10 Or saith he it<\/em> altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this<\/em> is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 10. Should plough in hope<\/strong> ] 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.<\/em> (Propert.) <\/p>\n 10.<\/strong> ] Or<\/strong> (the other alternative being rejected) on<\/strong> OUR account<\/strong> ( , emphatic not on account of men<\/em> generally, but as Estius, “propter nos evangelii ministros:” cf. the of 1Co 9:11-12<\/span> , with which this is inseparably allied) altogether<\/strong> ( ,. . Chrys. p. 183) does it<\/strong> ( : 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)?<\/strong> (on our account): for on our account it<\/strong> (viz. . . ., not, that which follows, q. esset ) was written: because<\/strong> (argumentative, as the ground<\/em> of , not, as in some of my earlier editions, containing the purpose<\/em> of , Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n