1Cor 9:7-10, 13 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 7. Who goeth a warfare , etc. Paul now proceeds to illustrate the RIGHT which he knew ministers had to a support, ( ) and then to show the REASON why he had not availed himself of that right, . The right he illustrates from the nature of the case, ( ;) from the authority of Scripture, ( ;) from the example of the priests under the Jewish law, ( ;) and from the authority of Jesus Christ, . In this verse ( ) the right is enforced by the nature of the case, and by three illustrations. The first is, the right of a soldier or warrior to his wages. The Christian ministry is compared to a warfare, and the Christian minister to a soldier. Comp. . The soldier had a right to receive pay from him who employed him. He did not go at his own expense. This was a matter of common equity; and on this principle all acted who enlisted as soldiers. So Paul says it is but equitable also that the soldier of the Lord Jesus should be sustained, and should not be required to support himself. And why, we may ask, should he be, any more than the man who devotes his strength, and time, and talents to the defence of his country? The work of the ministry is as arduous, and as self-denying, and perhaps as dangerous, as the work of a soldier; and common justice, therefore, demands that he who devotes his youth, and health, and life to it, for the benefit of others, should have a competent support. Why should not he receive a competent support who seeks to save men, as well as he who lives to destroy them? Why not he who endeavours to recover them to God, and make them pure and happy, as well as he who lives to destroy life, and pour out human blood, and to fill the air with the shrieks of new-made widows and orphans? Or why not he who seeks, though in another mode, to defend the great interests of his country, and to maintain the interests of justice, truth, and mercy, for the benefit of mankind, as well as he who is willing in the tented field to spend his time, or exhaust his health and life in protecting the rights of the nation? At his own charges ? His own expense. On the meaning of the word "charges"--οψωνιοις-- see . Compare . The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. Who planteth a vineyard , etc. This is the second illustration from the nature of the case, to show that ministers of the gospel have a right to support. The argument is this: "It is reasonable that those who labour should have a fair compensation. A man who plants a vineyard does not expect to labour for nothing; he expects support from that labour, and looks for it from the vineyard. The vineyard owes its beauty, growth, and productiveness to him. It is reasonable, therefore, that from that vineyard he should receive a support, as a compensation for his toil. So we labour for your welfare. You derive advantage from our toil. We spend our time, and strength, and talent for your benefit; and it is reasonable that we should be supported while we thus labour for your good." The church, of God is often compared to a vineyard ; and this adds to the beauty of this illustration. See . , and . Who feedeth a flock , etc. This is the third illustration drawn from the nature of the case, to show that ministers have a right to support. The word "feedeth"--ποιμαινει--denotes not only to feed , but to guard, protect, defend, as a shepherd does his flock. , . "The wages of the shepherds in the East do not consist of ready money, but in a part of the milk of the flocks which they tend. Thus Spon says of the shepherds in modern Greece, 'These shepherds are poor Albanians, who feed the cattle, and live in huts built of rushes: they have a tenth part of the milk, and of the lambs, which is their whole wages: the cattle belong to the Turks.' The shepherds in Ethiopia, also, according to Alvarez, have no pay except the milk and butter which they obtain from the cows, and on which they and their families subsist."-- Rosenmuller . The church is often compared to a flock. , etc. The argument here is this: A shepherd spends his days and nights in guarding his folds. He leads his flock to green pastures, he conducts them to still waters, (comp. ;) he defends them from enemies; he guards the young, the sick, the feeble, etc. He spends his time in protecting it and providing for it. He expects support, when in the wilderness or in the pastures, mainly from the milk which the flock should furnish. He labours for their comfort; and it is proper that he should derive a maintenance from them, and he has a right to it. So the minister of the gospel watches for the good of souls. He devotes his time, strength, learning, talents, to their welfare. He instructs, guides, directs, defends; he endeavours to guard them against their spiritual enemies, and to lead them in the path of comfort and peace. He lives to instruct the ignorant; to warn and secure those who are in danger; to guide the perplexed; to reclaim the wandering; to comfort the afflicted; to bind up the broken in heart; to attend on the sick; to be an example and an instructor to the young; and to be a counsellor and a pattern to all. As he labours for their good, it is no more than equal and right that they should minister to his temporal wants, and compensate him for his efforts to promote their happiness and salvation. And can any man say that this is NOT right and just? (b) "warfare" (c) "vineyard" (d) "feedeth"

1 Corinthians 9:7-10

Verse 7. Who goeth a warfare, etc. Paul now proceeds to illustrate the RIGHT which he knew ministers had to a support, (1Cor 9:7-14) and then to show the REASON why he had not availed himself of that right, 1Cor 9:15-23. The right he illustrates from the nature of the case, (1Cor 9:7,11;) from the authority of Scripture, (1Cor 9:8-10;) from the example of the priests under the Jewish law, (1Cor 9:13;) and from the authority of Jesus Christ, 1Cor 9:14. In this verse (1Cor 9:7) the right is enforced by the nature of the case, and by three illustrations. The first is, the right of a soldier or warrior to his wages. The Christian ministry is compared to a warfare, and the Christian minister to a soldier. Comp. 1Timm 1:18. The soldier had a right to receive pay from him who employed him. He did not go at his own expense. This was a matter of common equity; and on this principle all acted who enlisted as soldiers. So Paul says it is but equitable also that the soldier of the Lord Jesus should be sustained, and should not be required to support himself. And why, we may ask, should he be, any more than the man who devotes his strength, and time, and talents to the defence of his country? The work of the ministry is as arduous, and as self-denying, and perhaps as dangerous, as the work of a soldier; and common justice, therefore, demands that he who devotes his youth, and health, and life to it, for the benefit of others, should have a competent support. Why should not he receive a competent support who seeks to save men, as well as he who lives to destroy them? Why not he who endeavours to recover them to God, and make them pure and happy, as well as he who lives to destroy life, and pour out human blood, and to fill the air with the shrieks of new-made widows and orphans? Or why not he who seeks, though in another mode, to defend the great interests of his country, and to maintain the interests of justice, truth, and mercy, for the benefit of mankind, as well as he who is willing in the tented field to spend his time, or exhaust his health and life in protecting the rights of the nation?

At his own charges? His own expense. On the meaning of the word "charges"--οψωνιοις-- see Lk 3:14. Compare Rom 6:23, 2Cor 11:8. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.

Who planteth a vineyard, etc. This is the second illustration from the nature of the case, to show that ministers of the gospel have a right to support. The argument is this: "It is reasonable that those who labour should have a fair compensation. A man who plants a vineyard does not expect to labour for nothing; he expects support from that labour, and looks for it from the vineyard. The vineyard owes its beauty, growth, and productiveness to him. It is reasonable, therefore, that from that vineyard he should receive a support, as a compensation for his toil. So we labour for your welfare. You derive advantage from our toil. We spend our time, and strength, and talent for your benefit; and it is reasonable that we should be supported while we thus labour for your good." The church, of God is often compared to a vineyard; and this adds to the beauty of this illustration. See Isa 5:1-4. Lk 20:9, and Lk 20:10-16.

Who feedeth a flock, etc. This is the third illustration drawn from the nature of the case, to show that ministers have a right to support. The word "feedeth"--ποιμαινει--denotes not only to feed, but to guard, protect, defend, as a shepherd does his flock. Jn 21:15, Jn 21:16-17. "The wages of the shepherds in the East do not consist of ready money, but in a part of the milk of the flocks which they tend. Thus Spon says of the shepherds in modern Greece, 'These shepherds are poor Albanians, who feed the cattle, and live in huts built of rushes: they have a tenth part of the milk, and of the lambs, which is their whole wages: the cattle belong to the Turks.' The shepherds in Ethiopia, also, according to Alvarez, have no pay except the milk and butter which they obtain from the cows, and on which they and their families subsist."--Rosenmuller. The church is often compared to a flock. Jn 10:1, etc. The argument here is this: A shepherd spends his days and nights in guarding his folds. He leads his flock to green pastures, he conducts them to still waters, (comp. Ps 23:2;) he defends them from enemies; he guards the young, the sick, the feeble, etc. He spends his time in protecting it and providing for it. He expects support, when in the wilderness or in the pastures, mainly from the milk which the flock should furnish. He labours for their comfort; and it is proper that he should derive a maintenance from them, and he has a right to it. So the minister of the gospel watches for the good of souls. He devotes his time, strength, learning, talents, to their welfare. He instructs, guides, directs, defends; he endeavours to guard them against their spiritual enemies, and to lead them in the path of comfort and peace. He lives to instruct the ignorant; to warn and secure those who are in danger; to guide the perplexed; to reclaim the wandering; to comfort the afflicted; to bind up the broken in heart; to attend on the sick; to be an example and an instructor to the young; and to be a counsellor and a pattern to all. As he labours for their good, it is no more than equal and right that they should minister to his temporal wants, and compensate him for his efforts to promote their happiness and salvation. And can any man say that this is NOT right and just?

(b) "warfare" 1Timm 1:18 (c) "vineyard" De 20:6, Prov 27:18 (d) "feedeth" 1Pet 5:2 Verse 8. 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 recognised and acted on under the Jewish dispensation. He does not mean to say, by this example of the ox treading out the corn, that the law as given by Moses referred to the Christian ministry; but that the principle there was settled that the labourer 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 labouring, it was much more reasonable to suppose that he would require a suitable provision to be made for the ministers of religion. Verse 9. For it is written. De 25:4.

In the law of Moses. Lk 24:44.

Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth, etc. To muzzle, means "to bind the mouth; to fasten the mouth to prevent eating or biting."-- Webster. This was done either by passing straps around the mouth, or by placing, as is now sometimes done, a small basket over the mouth, fastened by straps to the horns of the animal, so as to prevent its eating, but not to impede its breathing freely. This was an instance of the humanity of the laws of Moses. The idea is, that the ox should not be prevented from eating when it was in the midst of food; and that as it laboured for its owner, it was entitled to support; and there was a propriety that it should be permitted to partake of the grain which it was threshing.

That treadeth, etc. This was one of the common modes of threshing in the east, as it is with us. Mt 3:12.

The corn. The grain, of any kind; wheat, rye, barley, etc. Maize, to which we apply the word corn, was then unknown. Mt 12:1.

Doth God take care for oxen? Doth God take care for oxen ONLY? Or is not this rather a principle which shows God's care for all that labour, and the humanity and equity of his laws? And if he is so solicitous about the welfare of brutes as to frame an express law in their behalf, is it not to be presumed that the same principle of humanity and equity will run through all his dealings and requirements? The apostle does not mean to deny that God does take care for oxen, for the very law was proof that he did; but he means to ask whether it is to be supposed that God would regard the comfort of oxen and not of men also? whether we are not to suppose that the same principle would apply also to those who labour in the service of God? He uses this passage, therefore, not as originally having reference to men, or to ministers of the gospel, which cannot be; but as establishing a general principle in regard to the equity and humanity of the Divine laws; and as thus showing that the spirit of the law of God would lead to the conclusion that God intended that the labourer everywhere should have a competent support.

(a) "written in the law" De 25:4, 1Timm 5:18 Verse 10. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? The word "altogether" --παντως--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,

(1.) this would be directly contrary to the law itself, which had some direct and undoubted reference to oxen;

(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,

(3.) the word "altogether"--παντως--does not of necessity require this interpretation. It may be rendered chiefly, mainly, principally, or doubtless. Lk 4:23, "Ye will surely (παντως, certainly, surely, doubtless) say unto me this proverb," etc. Acts 18:21, "I must by all means (παντως, certainly, surely) keep this feast." Acts 21:22, "The multitude must needs (παντως, will certainly, surely, inevitably) come together," etc. Acts 28:4, "No doubt (παντως) 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.

For our sakes, etc. 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.

That he that ploweth, etc. The Greek in this place would be more literally and more properly rendered, "For (οτι) he that plougheth OUGHT (οφειλει) to plough in hope;" i.e., in hope of reaping a harvest, or of obtaining success in his labours; 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 labours. This is the case with those who do plough; and if this should be the case with those who cultivate the earth, it is as certainly reasonable that those who labour in God's husbandry, and who devote their strength to his service, should be encouraged with a reasonable prospect of success and support."

And that he that thresheth, etc. This sentence, in the Greek, is very elliptical and obscure; but the sense is, evidently, "He that thresheth ought to partake of his hope; i.e., of the fruits of his hope, or of the result of his labour. It is fair and right that he should enjoy the fruits of his toil. So in God's 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, "The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits."

(b) "he that ploweth" 2Ti 2:6

1 Corinthians 9:13

Verse 13. Do ye not know, etc. In this verse Paul illustrates the doctrine that the ministers of religion were entitled to a support from the fact that those who were appointed to offer sacrifice received a maintenance in their work.

They which minister about holy things. Probably the Levites. Their office was to render assistance to the priests, to keep guard around the tabernacle, and subsequently around the temple. It was also their duty to see that the temple was kept clean, and to prepare supplies for the sanctuary, such as oil, wine, incense, etc. They had the care of the revenues; and, after the time of David, were required to sing in the temple, and to play upon instruments, Nu 3:1-36, 4:1,30,35,42; Nu 8:5-22, 1Chr 23:3-5,24,27, 24:20-31.

Live of the things of the temple? Marg., Feed; i.e., are supported in their work by the offerings of the people, and by the provisions which were made for the temple service. Nu 18:24-32.

And they which wait at the altar. Probably the priests who were employed in offering sacrifice.

Are partakers with the altar? That is, a part of the animal offered in sacrifice is burned as an offering to God, and a part becomes the property of the priest for his support; and thus the altar and the priest become joint, participators of the sacrifice. From these offerings the priests derived their maintenance. See Nu 18:8-19, De 18:1, etc. The argument of the apostle here is this: "As the ministers of religion under the Jewish dispensation were entitled to support by the authority and the law of God, that fact settles a general principle which is applicable also to the gospel, that he intends that the ministers of religion should derive their support in their work. If it was reasonable then, it is reasonable now. If God commanded it then, it is to be presumed that he intends to require it now.

(1) "live" "feed" (b) "they which wait" Nu 18:8, De 18:1