Or said he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plows should plow in hope; and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.
Or said he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plows should plow in hope; and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.
or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking.
Or has he us in mind? Yes, it was said for us; because it is right for the ploughman to do his ploughing in hope, and for him who is crushing the grain to do his work hoping for a part in the fruits of it.
Or saith he this 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.
or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope.
or saith he it altogether for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking.
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, principally, or doubtless;" Luke 4:23, "Ye will 'surely' (πάντως pantōs certainly, surely, doubtless) say unto me this proverb," etc.; Acts 18:21, "I must 'by all means' (πάντως pantōs, certainly, surely) keep this feast; Acts 21:22, "The multitude 'must needs' (πάντως pantōs, will certainly, surely, inevitably) come together," etc.; Acts 28:4, "'No doubt' (πάντως pantōs) 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 ... - 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 ... - The Greek in this place would be more literally and more properly rendered, "For (ὅτι hoti) he that ploweth ought (ὀφείλει 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 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 ... - 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 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 2 Timothy 2:6, "The husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits."
9:10 He who ploweth ought to plow in hope — Of reaping. This seems to be a proverbial expression.
And he that thresheth in hope — Ought not to be disappointed, ought to eat the fruit of his labours. And ought they who labour in God's husbandry. Deuteronomy 25:4