Actus 9:10

Nova Vulgata

An propter nos utique dicit? Nam propter nos scripta sunt, quoniam debet in spe, qui arat, arare; et, qui triturat, in spe fructus percipiendi.

Parallel Translations

Clementine Latin Vulgate (1592)
Non solum autem illa : sed et Rebecca ex uno concubitu habens, Isaac patris nostri.

Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405)
an propter nos utique hoc dicit? Nam propter nos scripta sunt: quoniam debet in spe qui arat, arare: et qui triturat, in spe fructus percipiendi.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

For: Matthew 24:22, Romans 15:4, 2 Corinthians 4:15

that ploweth: 1 Corinthians 3:9, Luke 17:7, Luke 17:8, John 4:35-38, 2 Timothy 2:6

Reciprocal: Numbers 18:31 - your reward Numbers 31:41 - Eleazar Numbers 35:2 - General Deuteronomy 12:19 - Take Deuteronomy 25:4 - muzzle 2 Chronicles 4:3 - And under Isaiah 28:28 - Bread Isaiah 30:24 - oxen Ezekiel 1:10 - the face of an ox Matthew 10:31 - General Romans 4:23 - General 1 Corinthians 10:11 - they Philippians 3:8 - doubtless Philippians 4:14 - ye did 1 Timothy 5:18 - Thou Revelation 4:7 - like a calf

Gill's Notes on the Bible

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. This law is elsewhere produced by the apostle, and urged in favour of the maintenance of ministers, as here, 1 Timothy 5:17 and therefore

for our sakes no doubt it is written; to teach men, that as any workmen are not to be deprived of proper sustenance, so neither they that labour in the word and doctrine:

that he that ploweth should plow in hope; of enjoying the fruit of his labours:

and that he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope; of having a supply out of that he is threshing.

m R. Menuachcm apud Ainsworth on Deut. xxii. 7. & Drusium in loc.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

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.”

Clarke's Notes on the Bible

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.