1Cor 9:7-14 | 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 9:7-14

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 Verse 11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things. If we have been the means of imparting to you the gospel, and bestowing upon you its high hopes and privileges. Rom 15:27. The figure of sowing, to denote the preaching of the gospel, is not unfrequently employed in the Scriptures. See Jn 4:37; and the parable of the sower, Mt 13:3, etc.

Is it a great thing, etc. Rom 15:27. Is it to be regarded as unequal, unjust, or burdensome? Is it to be supposed that we are receiving that for which we have not rendered a valuable consideration? The sense is, "We impart blessings of more value than we receive. We receive a supply of our temporal wants. We impart to you, under the Divine blessing, the gospel, with all its hopes and consolations. We make you acquainted with God; with the plan of salvation; with the hope of heaven. We instruct your children; we guide you in the path of comfort and peace; we raise you from the degradations of idolatry and of sin; and we open before you the hope of the resurrection of the just, and of all the bliss of heaven: and to do this, we give ourselves to toil and peril by land and by sea. And can it be made a matter of question whether all these high and exalted hopes are of as much value to dying man as the small amount which shall be needful to minister to the wants of those who are the means of imparting these blessings? Paul says this, therefore, from the reasonableness of the case. The propriety of support might be further urged,

(1.) because without it the ministry would be comparatively useless. Ministers, like physicians, lawyers, and farmers, should be allowed to attend mainly to the great business of their lives, and to their appropriate work. No physician, no farmer, no mechanic, could accomplish much, if his attention was constantly turned off from his appropriate business to engage in something else. And how can the minister of the gospel, if his time is nearly all taken up in labouring to provide for the wants of his family?

(2.) The great mass of ministers spend their early days, and many of them all their property, in preparing to preach the gospel to others. And as the mechanic, who has spent his early years in learning a trade, and the physician and lawyer in preparing for their profession, receive support in that calling, why should not the minister of the gospel?

(3.) Men, in other things, cheerfully pay those who labour for them. They compensate the schoolmaster, the physician, the lawyer, the merchant, the mechanic; and they do it cheerfully, because they suppose they receive a valuable consideration for their money. But is it not so with regard to ministers of the gospel? Is not a man's family as certainly benefited by the labours of a faithful clergyman and pastor, as by the skill of a physician or a lawyer, or by the service of the schoolmaster? Are not the affairs of the soul and of eternity as important to a man's family as those of time and the welfare of the body? So the music-master and the dancing-master are paid, and paid cheerfully and liberally; and yet can there be any comparison between the value of their services and those of the minister of the gospel?

(4.) It might be added, that society is benefited in a pecuniary way by the service of a faithful minister to a far greater extent than the amount of compensation which he receives. One drunkard, reformed under his labours, may earn and save to his family and to society as much as the whole salary of the pastor. The promotion of order, peace, sobriety, industry, education, and regularity in business, and honesty in contracting and in paying debts, saves much more to the community at large, than the cost of the support of the gospel. In regard to this, any man may make the comparison at his leisure, between those places where the ministry is established, and where temperance, industry, and sober habits prevail, and those places where there is no ministry, and where gambling, idleness, and dissipation abound. It is always a matter of economy to a people, in the end, to support schoolmasters and ministers as they ought to be supported.

Reap your carnal things. Partake of those things which relate to the present life; the support of the body, i.e., food and raiment.

(c) "if we" Rom 15:27 (*) "carnal" "worldly" Verse 12. If others. Other teachers living with you. There can be no doubt that the teachers in Corinth urged this right, and received a support.

Be partakers of this power. Of this right to a support and maintenance.

Are not we rather? We the apostles; we who have laboured for your conversion; who have founded your church; who have been the first and the most laborious in instructing you, and imparting to you Spiritual blessings? Have not we a better claim than they?

Nevertheless we have not used this power. We have not urged this claim; we have chosen to forego this right, and to labour for our own support. The reason why they had done this, he states in the subsequent part of the chapter. See 2Cor 11:7-9, 12:14. Comp. Acts 18:3; Acts 20:34,35.

But suffer all things. Endure all privations and hardships; we subject ourselves to poverty, want, hunger, thirst, nakedness, rather than urge a claim on you, and thus leave the suspicion that we are actuated by mercenary motives. The word used here (στεγομεν, suffer) means, properly, to cover, to keep off, as rain, etc., and then to contain, to sustain, tolerate, endure. Here it means, to bear or endure all hardships. Comp. 1Cor 4:11-13.

Lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Paul here states the reason why he had not urged a claim to support in preaching the gospel. It was not because he was not entitled to a full support, but it was that by denying himself of this right he could do good, and avoid some evil consequences which would have resulted if he had strenuously urged it. His conduct therefore in this was just one illustration of the principle on which he said (1Cor 8:13) he would always act: a readiness to deny himself of things lawful, if by that he could promote the welfare of others. The reasons why his urging this claim might have hindered the gospel, may have been many.

(1.) It might have exposed him and the ministry generally to the charge of being mercenary.

(2.) It would have prevented his presenting in bold relief the fact that he was bound to preach the gospel at all events, and that he was actuated in it by a simple conviction of its truth.

(3.) It might have alienated many minds, who might otherwise have been led to embrace it.

(4.) It would have prevented the exercise of self-denial in him, and the benefits which resulted from that self-denial, etc., 1Cor 9:17,18,23,27.

(*) "power" "right" (a) "Nevertheless" 2Cor 11:7-9, 12:14 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 Verse 14. Even so. In the same manner, and for the same reasons.

Hath the Lord ordained. Hath the Lord appointed, commanded, arranged that it should be so, (διεταξε.) The word here means, that he has made this a law, or has required it; The word "Lord" here doubtless refers to the Lord Jesus, who has sent forth his ministers to labour in the great harvest of the world.

That they which preach the gospel. They who are sent forth by him; who devote their lives to this work; who are called and employed by him in this service. This refers, therefore, not only to the apostles, but to all who are duly called to this work, and who are his ambassadors.

Should live of the gospel. Should be supported and. maintained in this work. Paul here probably refers to the appointment of the Lord Jesus, when he sent forth his disciples to preach, Mt 10:10; Lk 10:8. Compare Gal 6:6. The man may be said to "live in the gospel" who is supported while he preaches it, or who derives his maintenance in that work. Here we may observe,

(1.) that the command is, that they shall live (ζην) of the gospel. It is not that they should grow rich, or lay up treasures, or speculate in it, or become merchants, farmers, teachers, or book-makers for a living; but it is, that they should have such a maintenance as to constitute a livelihood. They should be made comfortable, not rich. They should receive so much as to keep their minds from being harassed with cares, and their families from want; not so much as to lead them to forget their dependence on God, or on the people. Probably the true rule is, that they should be able to live as the mass of the people among whom they labour live; that they should be able to receive and entertain the poor, and be willing to do it; and so that the rich also may not despise them, or turn away from their dwelling.

(2.) This is a command of the Lord Jesus; and if it is a command, it should be obeyed as much as any other law of the Redeemer. And if this is a command, then the minister is entitled to a support; and then also a people are not at liberty to withhold it. Further, there are as strong reasons why they should support him, as there are why they should pay a schoolmaster, a lawyer, a physician, or a day-labourer. The minister usually toils as hard as others; expends as much in preparing for his work; and does as much good. And there is even a higher claim in this case. God has given an express command in this case; he has not in the others.

(3.) The salary of a minister should not be regarded as a gift merely, any more than the pay of a congress-man, a physician, or a lawyer. He has a claim to it; and God has commanded that it should be paid. It is, moreover, a matter of stipulation and of compact, by which a people agree to compensate him for his services. And yet, is there anything in the shape of debt where there is so much looseness as an regard to this subject? Are men usually as conscientious in this as they are in paying a physician or a merchant? Are not ministers often in distress for that which has been promised them, and which they have a right to expect? And is not their usefulness, and the happiness of the people, and the honour of religion, intimately connected with obeying the rule of the Lord Jesus in this respect?