1Cor 9:8-10 | Barnes | STEP | 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.

1 Corinthians 9:8-10

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