1 Corinthians 9:10

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. ALTOGETHER - join with "saith." It would be untrue that God saith it altogether (in the sense of solely) for our sakes. But it is true that He by all means saith it for our sakes as the ultimate object in the lower world. Else translate 'mainly' or 'especially.' THAT - teaching us that [ hoti (G3754)]. SHOULD PLOW - ought to plow in hope. The people ought not to let their minister labour without remuneration. HE THAT THRASHETH IN HOPE SHOULD BE PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE. So G f g, except "in hope." 'Aleph (') A B, Vulgate, Syriac, Origen, read 'he that thrasheth (ought to thrash) in the hope...

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

1-14 It is not new for a minister to meet with unkind returns for good-will to a people, and diligent and successful services among them. To the cavils of some, the apostle answers, so as to set forth himself as an example of self-denial, for the good of others. He had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people's duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support....

Verse 1 Corinthians 9:10. _AND HE THAT THRESHETH IN HOPE SHOULD BE PARTAKER OF_ _HIS HOPE._] Instead of ὁ αλοων της ελπιδος αυτου μετεχειν, επ' ελπιδι, many of the best MSS. and versions read the passage thus: ὁ αλοων επ' ελπιδι του μετεχειν· _And he who thresheth in hope_ _of partaking_. "The words της ελπιδος, which are omitted by the above, are," says Bp. Pearce, "superfluous, if not wrong; for men do not live _in hope_ to partake of _their hope_, but to partake of what was the _object_ and _end_ of their _hope_. When these words are left out, the former and latter sentence will be both of a piece, and more resembling each other: for μετεχειν may be understood after the first επ ελπιδι, as well as after the last." Griesbach has left the words in question out of the text....

OR SAITH HE IT ALTOGETHER FOR OUR SAKES? - The word “altogether” (πάντως pantōs) 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” (πάντως pantōs) does not of necessity require this interpretation. It may be rendered “chiefly, mainly, princ

EXPOSITION 1 CORINTHIANS 9:1 The rights and the self denial of an apostle. 1 CORINTHIANS 9:1 An apostle's right to maintenance. 1 CORINTHIANS 9:1 AM I NOT AN APOSTLE I AM I NOT FREE? The order of the best manuscripts is, _Am I not free? am I not an apostle? _St. Paul designed in this chapter to show that he was not only _giving a precept, _but _setting an example, _He told the "strong" Corinthians, who had "knowledge," that they should be ready to abnegate their rights for the good of others, he now wishes to show them that, in a matter which affected his whol

OR SAITH HE IT ALTOGETHER FOR OUR SAKES,.... 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, להוציא את אדם, "to express man"; and so another of the Jewish writers m interprets the law in Deuteronomy 22:6. "Thou shalt not take the dam with the young"; "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:'' 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 Ezekiel 1:10.

1 CORINTHIANS 9:10 evpV evlpi,di tou/ mete,cein The reading that best explains the origin of the others is evpV evlpi,di tou/ mete,cein (î46 a* (A) B C P 33 69 vg syrp, h copsa, bo, fay arm _al_). Not observing that avloa/n must be understood after avlow/n, copyists assumed that mete,cein was the infinitive after ovfei,lei and therefore adjusted the reading to th/j evlpi,doj auvtou/ mete,cein (D* F G 181 917 1836 1896 syrhmg). Later the sense was improved somewhat by combining the readings, thus producing...

6. PAUL'S GRACIOUS EXAMPLE. CHAPTER 9 _ 1. The Apostle's rights. (1 Corinthians 9:1)._ 2. He waives his rights for the Gospel's sake. (1 Corinthians 9:15). 3. The race-course and the crown. (1 Corinthians 9:24). The great principle laid down in the previous chapter to forego one's Christian liberty, the Apostle Paul enforced by his own example. He was an Apostle and had seen the Lord Jesus, from whom he had received his apostleship (Galatians 1:1). From the second verse we learn that some had not recognized him as an Apostle; these must have been false teachers. But

1 CORINTHIANS 9. This chapter is not a digression, and is not primarily concerned with a vindication of Paul's apostolic status and rights. He enforces his plea that the enlightened should not ride roughshod over scruples they despised, by his own refusal to insist on his apostolic rights. He too was free, was an apostle, had received his commission from the risen Lord, his apostleship to the Corinthians was indubitably attested by his work among them. He (? and his colleagues) may accept maintenance, travel with a Christian wife like other apostles and the Lord's brethren. Must he and Barnabas alone be compelled to work for their living? That would be against human precedent, against the Law also, for by its prohibition of muzzling the ox as he treads out the corn on the threshing-floor, God meant that the preachers of the Gospel should be supported in return for their work. If the Cori...