성경 주석서

CHAPTER 9

1 Corinthians 9:1. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ.] So A B א, min[1373], and most of the vss[1374], with Tertullian, Origen, Ambrosiast. Aug. Pelag. Cassiodorus, Bede, Griesb. Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. Elz. inverts the order of the questions, and is defended by Pott, Rinck, Reiche, Comm. crit. I. p. 206 ff., Hofmann. But it was very natural to transfer οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπ. to the first place as the more important point, and the one first expounded in detail by the apostle himself (1 Corinthians 9:1-3).—1 Corinthians 9:2. τῆς ἐμῆς] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read μου τῆς, with B א, 17, 31, 46, Or. Rightly; the Recept[1375] is a more precise definition of the meaning inserted in view of 1 Corinthians 9:3. Had ΜΟΥ crept in from the ΤῸ ἜΡΓΟΝ ΜΟΥ in 1 Corinthians 9:1, it would have been put after ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛῆς.—1 Corinthians 9:6. ΤΟῦ] is wanting, it is true, in A B D* F G א, 17, 46, Isidor., and is deleted consequently by Lachm. and Rück.; but the omission was very naturally suggested by 1 Corinthians 9:4-5.—1 Corinthians 9:7. ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΚΑΡΠΟῦ] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read ΤῸΝ ΚΑΡΠΌΝ, with A B C* D* F G א*, 17, 46, 137, Sahid. Boern. Tol. Flor. Harl. Vulg. ms. Bede. The Recept[1376] is an alteration in accordance with what follows, made without observing the difference in meaning.—1 Corinthians 9:8. ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ κ.τ.λ[1377]] There is decisive testimony in favour of Ἢ ΚΑῚ Ὁ ΝΌΜΟς ΤΑῦΤΑ Οὐ ΛΈΓΕΙ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. It was altered because not understood.—1 Corinthians 9:10. ἘΠʼ ἘΛΠΊΔΙ ΤΟῦ ΜΕΤΈΧΕΙΝ] So Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch., with A B C א*, 10, 17, 71, Syr[1378] utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Or. Eus. Cyr. The Recept[1379] again (defended by Reiche) is: Τῆς ἙΛΠΊΔΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ ΜΕΤΈΧΕΙΝ ἘΠʼ ἘΛΠΊΔΙ. Since, however, this ἘΠʼ ἘΛΠΊΔΙ is omitted also by D* F G, 46, it has such a weight of evidence against it[1380] that it must be rejected at once; τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν, again, is so plain as regards its meaning, that had it been the original reading it could hardly have given rise to any change. If, on the other hand, it was not observed that we have to supply ἈΛΟᾶΝ after ἈΛΟῶΝ, the ἘΠʼ ἘΛΠΊΔΙ ΤΟῦ ΜΕΤΈΧΕΙΝ remained unintelligible, and Τῆς ἘΛΠΊΔΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ was put in as a gloss to obviate the difficulty; then this mistaken gloss in some cases displaced the original words, in others, got mixed up with them (EIz.).—1 Corinthians 9:11. θερίσομεν] C D E F G L, min[1381] Vulg. It. Theodoret, have θερίσωμεν. So Lachm. on the margin. Tischendorf is right in receiving it into the text; grammarians took offence at the subjunctive after ΕἾ.—1 Corinthians 9:13. There is decisive evidence for reading ΠΑΡΕΔΡ. here with Lachm. Rück. Tisch. (approved also by Griesb.), and in 1 Corinthians 9:15 Οὐ ΚΈΧΡΗΜΑΙ ΟὐΔΕΝῚ Τ., with Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Rück. Tisch.—1 Corinthians 9:15. ἼΝΑ ΤῚς ΚΕΝΏΣῌ] There is great diversity here. B D* א*, Sahid. Bashm. have ΟὐΔΕῚς ΚΕΝΏΣΕΙ (so Lachm.). A has ΟὐΔΕῚς ΜῊ ΚΕΝΏΣΕΙ (so Rück.). F G, 26, give us ΤΙς ΚΕΝΏΣΕΙ. The Recept[1382], which is specially defended by Reiche, ἵνα τὶς κενώσῃ, has only a partial support from C D*** E I K א**, the majority of the min[1383] and vss[1384], Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl. Oec., because most of these authorities are in favour of κενώσει, which is adopted by Tisch. But the Received reading, as well as the τις κενώσει, seems to be an attempt to amend the original—but not understood—text in B (which A only intensifies), so that we ought to read: ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου οὐδεὶς κενώσει. See the exeget. remarks on the verse.—1 Corinthians 9:16. καύχημα] D E F G א*, It.: χάρις. Not strongly enough attested; an old gloss in accordance with Luke 6:32-34. Instead of γάρ after οὐαί, Elz. has δέ, but against conclusive evidence. A false correction. There are decisive grounds for reading, with Lachm. and Tisch., εὐαγγελίσωμαι in place of the second εὐαγγελίζωμαι; the Recept[1385] is a repetition from the first.—1 Corinthians 9:18. Elz. and Scholz have ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ after ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛ., in opposition to decisive evidence.—1 Corinthians 9:20. ΜῊ ὪΝ ΑὐΤῸς ὙΠῸ ΝΌΜΟΝ] omitted in Elz., but given by almost all the uncials and many vss[1386] and Fathers. Homoeoteleuton.—1 Corinthians 9:21. The genitives ΘΕΟῦ and ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ (Elz. and Scholz have the datives) have decisive testimony in their favour, as ΚΕΡΔΆΝΩ ΤΟῪς ἈΝ. also has (so Lachm. Rück. Tisch.); the Recept[1387] ΚΕΡΔΉΣΩ ἈΝΌΜΟΥς was formed upon the model of 1 Corinthians 9:20.—1 Corinthians 9:22. The Ὡς before ἈΣΘ. is wanting in A B א*, Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. Cypr. Ambrosiast. Aug. Ambr. Bede. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was a mechanical addition on the plan of the preceding clauses.

The article before ΠΆΝΤΑ (Elz. Scholz) is condemned by a great preponderance of authority.—1 Corinthians 9:23. ΤΟῦΤΟ] The most and best of the uncials, with the majority of vss[1388] and Fathers, have ΠΆΝΤΑ; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. ΤΟῦΤΟ is a gloss inserted to define the meaning more precisely; for the same reason Sahid. Arm. read ΤΑῦΤΑ ΔῈ ΠΆΝΤΑ.—1 Corinthians 9:27. ὙΠΩΠΙΆΖΩ] So Elz. Lachm. It has such a mass of weighty testimony on its side (A B C D* א, min[1389] Or. Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Oec.) that the other readings, ὑποπιάζω (F G K L min[1390] Fathers) and ὑποπιέζω (D*** E, min[1391] Fathers), must be rejected even on the ground of external evidence alone, all the more that the vss[1392] castigo (Vulg.), subjicio, macero, affligo, domo, do not show clearly which reading they follow. Notwithstanding, ὑποπιάζω has been defended of late, especially by Matth. (“ΠΙΆΖΕΙΝ loco πιέζειν aliquos male habuit”), Reiche, Hofm., and adopted by Tisch. It appears to have been simply the production of ignorant and mechanical transcribers, who were familiar with ΠΙΆΖΩ or ΠΙΈΖΩ, but took offence at ὙΠΩ (with Ω).

[1373] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1374] ss. vss. = versions.

[1375] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1376] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1377] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1378] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1379] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1380] Reiche would attach this addition (which quite mars the sense in the Recepta) to the next verse; but there, too, especially as standing first, it would obtrude upon the antithesis something quite foreign to it and unsuitable.

[1381] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1382] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1383] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1384] ss. vss. = versions.

[1385] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1386] ss. vss. = versions.

[1387] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1388] ss. vss. = versions.

[1389] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1390] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1391] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1392] ss. vss. = versions.

CONTENTS.

That principle of loving self-denial which Paul had just laid down for himself in respect of the single point in question (1 Corinthians 8:13), he now confirms by referring to his general demeanour, of which that one resolve was merely a particular expression, and shows, in a frank, deeply impressive, and striking elucidation, how he, notwithstanding that he was free and an apostle (1 Corinthians 9:1-3), yet refrained from pressing his well-grounded right to have himself (and a consort as well) supported by the churches (1 Corinthians 9:4-18), and adapted himself to the needs of all men (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). His readers, therefore, should be like champions at the games in striving for the everlasting crown, preparing themselves to this end through the exercise of self-control, even as he too sought, by self-renunciation, to become worthy of the prize (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). Not until chap. 10 does he come back from this digression to the special topic (of the sacrificial flesh) with which it stands connected. It is not of the nature of an apology as regards its whole plan and design, but only incidentally so in some isolated references (1 Corinthians 9:2-3; 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 9:12).

1 Corinthians 9:1. The first two questions bring out the fact that he was seemingly exalted far above any such consideration and renunciation on his own part as he had announced in 1 Corinthians 8:13; the third question corroborates the full purport of the second; and the fourth places him in probative relation to his readers, whom Paul καὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς μαρτυρίαν καλεῖ, Theodoret.

ἐλεύθερος] free, dependent upon no man. Comp 1 Corinthians 9:19.

ἸΗΣΟῦΝ … ἙΏΡΑΚΑ] Observe the solemnity of the phrase; his readers knew what was implied in it on his lips. The reference here is not to his having seen Christ in His earthly life, which would have had nothing to do with his apostleship, and which, moreover, cannot be proved to have taken place in the case of Paul at all,—certainly not from 2 Corinthians 5:16,—but to the sight of the glorified Jesus, which was first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him to be an apostle (Acts 9:17; Acts 22:14 f., Acts 26:16; Acts 15:8), and was often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Acts 18:9; Acts 22:17 f.; 2 Corinthians 12:1).[1394] It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later appearances (Estius, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann), since they, too, were granted to the apostle as such, and in connection with his apostolic relation to Christ; they could only serve to confirm his position of equality in the apostleship, and in this bearing were doubtless familiar to his readers from Paul’s own lips.

ἐν Κυρίῳ] does not belong to ἔργον; just as little does it to ὑμεῖς (Pott), or to ὑμεῖς ἐστε alone (Rückert), but is meant to bring out the Christian character of the whole τὸ ἔργον μ. ὑμεῖς ἐστε. For out of Christ, in whom (as the object of faith) the Christian lives and moves, outside of this element of the new life and standing, the Corinthians, who owed their Christian existence to the apostle, were not his work. The rendering: by the help of the Lord, is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of those who adopt it understand Κύριος of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Rückert, al[1395], following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp 1 Corinthians 4:15.

[1394] Baur takes advantage of this stress laid on the fact of having seen Christ, to support his hypothesis as to the close connection of the Petrine and the Christ-party. See against this Räbiger, p. 128 f. According to Schenkel, the allusion is to the visions of the Christ-party (the existence of which he has first of all to assume). The true view is, that Paul is here indicating how, in respect of this point also, he stands in no whit behind the original apostles. Ἐπειδὴ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐκλήθη, εἶχον δὲ δόξαν οἱ ἀκόστολοι παρὰ πᾶσι μεγίστην ὡς τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου θεάς ἠξιωμένοι, καὶ τοῦτο προστέθεικεν, Theodoret. And it is no lower thing to have seen Christ in His glory than to have seen Him in His humiliation upon the earth. Comp. Calvin. As against the interpretations which make this a visionary beholding of Christ (Baur, Holstein, al.), see Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 220 f. How very distinctly Paul himself describes, especially in Acts 22:14, a bodily appearance! See also Galatians 1:1, comp. with ver. 15. Nothing contrary to this can be proved from the words ἑωρακέναι and ὀφθῆναι (1 Corinthians 15:8), since these do not determine the kind of seeing and appearing. Comp. e.g. the use of the latter term in Acts 7:26 of a bodily appearing.

[1395] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

1 Corinthians 9:2-3. Not a parenthesis, but a statement interposed in his own defence, occasioned by οὐ τὸ ἔργον κ.τ.λ[1397], and flowing from a heart deeply moved.

ἌΛΛΟΙς] i.e. in relation to others, who, not belonging to your community, do not own my apostleship as valid for them.[1398] “We have no Apostle Paul,” say they! Comp as to the relation of the dative, 1 Corinthians 8:6.

οὐκ εἰμί] See Winer, p. 446 [E. T. 601].

ἀλλάγε] still at least. See Hermann, a[1400] Viger. p. 826. The γε intensifies the ἀλλά of the apodosis (see on 1 Corinthians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 8:6): see Klotz, a[1401] Devar. p. 24 f. It cannot be said with any critical certainty that ἀλλάγε ever occurs in the classics undivided (without one or more words put between the two particles). See Klotz, l.c[1402] p. 15, and Heind. a[1403] Plat. Phaed. p. 86 E; Stallbaum, a[1404] Rep. p. 331 B.

Taking the reading ἡ γὰρ σφραγ. μου τ. ἀποστ. (see the critical remarks), the meaning is: my seal of apostleship, with the emphasis on σφραγ. As to the word itself, see Romans 4:11. Theodoret well remarks: ἀπόδειξιν γὰρ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν κατορθωμάτων τὴν ὑμετέραν ἔχω μεταβολήν.

ἐν Κυρίῳ] as in 1 Corinthians 9:1; it belongs to the whole preceding clause: ἡ σφραγὶς τ. ἐμ. ἀπ. ὑμ. ἐστε. For out of Christ the Corinthians were no seal of Paul’s apostleship. See on 1 Corinthians 9:1. They were this seal to him, inasmuch as they had become Christians through his agency (in general, not through his miracles in particular, as Flatt holds with older expositors).

ἡ ἐμὴ ἀπολογ. κ.τ.λ[1405]] statement of what the foregoing comes to, added without any connective particle, and so all the more emphatic; not merely a repetition of the last clause in other words (Hofmann), which would be an admissible interpretation only if αὕτη ἐστι were absent, or if ἘΣΤΈ occurred again.

ΤΟῖς ἙΜῈ ἈΝΑΚΡ.] to those who institute an inquiry regarding me (comp Acts 19:33; 2 Corinthians 12:19), who question my apostleship. Both ἈΠΟΛ. and ἈΝΑΚΡ. are purposely-chosen forensic expressions. Comp as to the latter, Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; Acts 12:19; Acts 24:8; Acts 28:18.

ΑὝΤΗ] this, namely, this fact, that you are the seal of mine ἀποστολή. It does not refer to what follows (Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Calovius), for 1 Corinthians 9:4 continues the series of questions begun in 1 Corinthians 9:1, and what follows does not contain any further defence of his apostleship (which, moreover, would be quite unsuitable here).

Observe, lastly, the emphasis of ἐμή and ἘΜΈ, expressive of a well-grounded sense of his own position.

[1397] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1398] It was unquestionably by stranger Petrine Christians that the anti-Pauline influence had been exerted upon the Corinthian church. So much is clear, but nothing more. Räbiger thinks that they were the instigators of the Petrine party in Corinth. Schenkel makes them of the Christ-party. Hofmann explains the expression from the difference between the ἀποστολὴ τῆς περιτομῆς and that τῆς ἀκροβυστίας. But that is going too far; for all circumcised Christians were not anti-Pauline, and the express contrast here is with the ὑμεῖς, among whom must be included the Jewish-Christians who were in Corinth.

[1400] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1401] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1402] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[1403] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1404] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1405] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 9:4 f. Returning from the digression in 1 Corinthians 9:2-3, Paul begins a new series of questions, with the view of now making good the prerogative arising out of his apostleship, which in point of fact he declined to exercise.

μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν] i.e. we surely are not destitute of the right to lead, etc.? Comp Romans 10:18; 1 Corinthians 11:22. The plural cannot be restricted in its reference to Paul alone, seeing that it has just been preceded, and is again followed in 1 Corinthians 9:6, by the singular, but must imply that the apostle is thinking both of himself and of whosoever else acts in like manner. More particularly, 1 Corinthians 9:6 shows that he has here in his eye, not his companions in labour generally (Hofmann), but Barnabas in particular besides himself (for see the μόνος in 1 Corinthians 9:6), and him only. It may be added, that Calovius is right in saying, against the abuse of this passage in the interests of monasticism, that Paul is not speaking here of what “semper et ubique vitari oporteat sed de eo tantum quod in casu noxii scandali infirmorum fratrum vitandum est.”

φαγεῖν κ. πιεῖν] i.e. at the cost of the churches. To understand it of non-observance of the Jewish laws about food (Hunnius, Heydenreich, Billroth, comp Olshausen), or of sacrificial flesh and wine (Schrader), is contrary to the context. See 1 Corinthians 9:6 ff. The right of eating and drinking, in the sense in which the reader would naturally understand it as an apostolic prerogative (Luke 10:7), required nothing to be added to define it. The analogy of Matthew 11:19 (Hofmann) has no bearing on the clause before us, the point of view there being that of asceticism.

The infinitives are exegetical, and need no τοῦ (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10, al[1410]).

ἈΔΕΛΦῊΝ ΓΥΝ. ΠΕΡΙΆΓ.] to lead about (along with me on my official journeys) a sister (a female believer) as a wife. The view taken by several of the Fathers (see Aug. de op. Monach. iv. 5, Jerome, τινές in Theodoret, Theophylact; comp generally, Suicer, Thes. I. p. 810), that a serviens matrona is meant (so also Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, and Estius), is against the plain meaning of the words, without shadow of historical support in the life of the apostle, supposes a somewhat unseemly relation, and is contrary to the example of Peter, Matthew 8:14.[1412] It has, however, been still defended of late by Roman Catholic writers (Maier) on wholly insufficient grounds. On περιάγειν, comp Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 28; it occurs oftener in the middle, as Xen. Mem. i. 7. 2; Polyb. xx. 5. 8.

ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιπ. ἀπ.] It does not follow from this that all the other apostles were married, but the majority of them must have been so, otherwise the phrase, which must be meant to hold at least a potiori, would be unsuitable.

καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου] Now, the brethren of the Lord are in Acts 1:14 expressly distinguished from the Twelve; further, in Galatians 1:19, James, the Lord’s brother, is equally distinguished from those who were apostles in the narrower and original sense (such as Peter); and further still, we have no trace in any of the lists of the apostles (Matthew 10:2 f.; Mark 3:16 f.; Luke 6:14 f.) that there were “brethren of the Lord” among the Twelve,—a supposition which would also be decidedly at variance with John 7:3; Mark 3:21. The ἈΔΕΛΦΟῚ ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ, therefore, should not be put on a level with Cephas (Hofmann), and sought within the number of the Twelve, but are the actual brothers of Jesus, not His half-brothers merely (sons of Joseph by a former marriage), but His uterine brothers, later-born sons of Joseph and Mary (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55), who had become believers and entered upon apostolic work after the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:7; Acts 1:14), and among whom James, in particular, as president of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18), had obtained a high apostolic position (Galatians 2:9). see on Acts 12:17; Galatians 1:19. This view (which is held also by de Wette, Billroth, Rückert, Osiander, Neander, and Ewald, among the more recent expositors of the passage before us) runs counter to what was formerly the common view, namely, that of Jerome, which still prevails with Roman Catholics, and is supported by Hengstenberg and others, that the phrase denotes the sons of Christ’s mother’s sister, so that James, the Lord’s brother, would be identical with the son of Alphaeus (but see on John 19:25), and would bear the name of “brother of the Lord” (אָח in the wider sense) as a title of honour from his near relationship to Jesus. Comp on Matthew 12:46. In like manner Lange, in his apost. Zeitalter, p. 189, understands the Alphaeidae to be meant; they were, he holds, the adopted brothers of Jesus, Joseph having adopted as his own the children of Alphaeus, who was his brother, after the latter’s death. All this is nothing but arbitrary imagination, resting simply upon the false assumption that Mary brought forth Jesus, not as her first-born (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7), but as her only child. Lange is wrong here in making the καί a proof that the brethren of the Lord were among the Twelve, and are but singled out from their number in this verse for special mention. What Paul says is rather: “as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord;” and then, having set before us this august circle formed by the Twelve and those brethren of the Lord closely associated with them since the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:14), in which, too, he himself, as an apostle, had an equal place, he singles out in conclusion the most illustrious of them all, one who was looked upon as the head of the whole circle (Galatians 1:18), by adding: “and, i.e. and, to mention him in particular by name, Cephas;” so that it is only the last καί, and not the second as well (as Hofmann, too, maintains), that carries the force of special distinction (Fritzsche, a[1415] Marc. p. 11); comp Mark 16:7.

The design of the whole question, μὴ οὐκ ἔχ. ἐξουσ. ἀδελφ. γ. π., has no bearing upon scruples (of the Christ-party) as to marriage being allowed (Olshausen), but is closely connected with the purport of the first question, as is plain from ΠΕΡΙΆΓΕΙΝ: “Am I denied, then, the right to live at the cost of the churches, and to have, like the other apostles, etc., a consort journeying along with me from place to place?” in which latter case a similar support from the churches is, from the nature of the circumstances, and from the scope of the context (1 Corinthians 9:4; 1 Corinthians 9:6), manifestly assumed as a matter of course.

Peter’s wife is called by tradition sometimes Concordia, sometimes Perpetua. See Grabe, Spicil. Patr. I. p. 330.

[1410] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1412] Valla perceived rightly “fuisse apostolos suas uxores comitatas,” but thinks that they were called sisters, “quod tanquam non uxores jam erant.” An “elegans argutia” (Calvin)!

[1415] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 9:6. Ἤ] or, i.e. unless it were true that, etc. In that case, indeed, the ἐξουσία, of which I spoke in 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, must of course be wanting! We have therefore no third ἐξουσία introduced here (Pott, Rückert), but ἤ conveys an argument, as it usually does.

Βαρνάβας] see on Acts 4:36. He was formerly (see on Acts 15:38) Paul’s companion in his missionary labours, and as such held a high apostolic position (Galatians 2:9).

τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζ.] Have we not the right to cease from working? Paul supported himself by tent-making (Acts 18:3); in what way Barnabas did so, is unknown. Both of them, very probably, after mutual consultation, had laid it down as a principle to maintain themselves by their own independent labour, and acted upon this rule even when working separately, whereas the rest of the apostolic teachers (see μόνος) claimed support from the resources of the churches. Ἐργάζεσθαι is the word constantly used for working, 2 Thessalonians 3:8; Acts 18:3; Homer, Il. xviii. 469, Od. xiv. 272; Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 11, al[1417] The rendering: hoc operandi (Vulgate and Latin Fathers), arises from a different reading (without the μή).

[1417] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

1 Corinthians 9:7. Proof of this apostolic right τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι from three analogies in common life, by applying which to the preachers of the gospel it is made manifest that these have the right to live from the gospel. “Pulchre confertur minister evangelii cum milite, vinitore, pastore,” Bengel. Comp 2 Corinthians 10:3 ff.; Matthew 20:1; John 10:12; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:5.

ἸΔΊΟΙς ὈΨ.] i.e. so that he pays his own wages (Luke 3:14; Romans 6:23).

The difference of construction in the two clauses with ἐσθίει (ΤῸΝ ΚΑΡΠΌΝ, see the critical remarks, and then ἘΚ), is to be regarded as simply an accidental change in the form of conception, without diversity in the substance of the thought. With ἘΚ (comp Sir 11:17; Tob 1:10, al[1420]) the expression is partitive; in using the accusative Paul has the fruit (the grapes) in a purely objective way before his mind. See generally, Kühner, II. p. 181. The wages of shepherds in the East consists to this day in a share of the milk. See Rosenmüller, Morgenl. VI. p. 97.

[1420] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

1 Corinthians 9:8. Transition to the proof from Scripture of the above ἐξουσία.

It is not supposed surely that I speak this (namely, what I say of that apostolic prerogative in applying to it the rule of these ordinary analogies) after the manner of a man (according to mere human judgment, as a purely human rule, and not a divinely given one)? or the law too, does it not say this? Is it silent concerning this principle? Does it contain no statement of it?

κατὰ ἄνθρ.] The opposite of this is κατὰ τὸν νόμον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Comp on Romans 3:5; Galatians 3:15. Theodoret gives the idea correctly: ΕἸ ΔΈ ΤΙΝΙ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΙΝΟς ΕἾΝΑΙ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΔΟΚΕῖ ΛΟΓΙΣΜῸς, ἈΚΟΥΈΤΩ ΤΟῦ ΝΌΜΟΥ ΔΙΑῤῬΉΔΗΝ ΔΙΑΓΟΡΕΎΟΝΤΟς.

Ἤ] as in 1 Corinthians 9:6. “I should not speak this after man’s way of thinking, if it were the case that the law contained nothing of it.” This is the affirmative sense of the interrogative phrase.

καί] too; the law is conceived of as the higher authority coming in over and above the individual λαλῶ.

οὐ] negatives the ΛΈΓΕΙ; see the critical remarks. Comp 1 Corinthians 9:7.

As to the difference to be noticed between ΛΑΛῶ and ΛΈΓΩ, see on Romans 3:19; John 8:43.

1 Corinthians 9:9. Γάρ] introduces the answer which is to prove that the ταῦτα οὐ λέγει does not hold good.

τῷ Μωϋσ. νόμῳ] carries a certain solemnity, as coming after ὁ νόμος in ver 8. The quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4, given exactly according to the LXX., where it is forbidden to keep the ox that drew the thrashing machine from eating by a muzzle (φιμός, κημός), which used to be done among heathen nations (Varro, i. 25; Cato, de re rust. 54). See Michaelis, Mos. R. III. § 130. The motive of the prohibition, in accordance with that spirit of tenderness towards the lower creation which breathes throughout the whole law (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 222), was humanity to the helpful animals. See Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21; Philo, de Carit. p. 711 F. The same citation is made in 1 Timothy 5:18. Comp also Constitt. Ap. ii. 25. 3.

φιμώσεις] = ΚΗΜΏΣΕΙς, which B* D* F G, Tisch. actually read, and which we should accept as genuine, since the former might easily creep into the text from the LXX. Regarding ΚΗΜΟῦΝ, to muzzle, comp Xen. de re eq. v. 3; Poll. i. 202. As to the future with the force of an imperative (thou wilt—that I expect of thee—not muzzle an ox in the thrashing-floor), see on Matthew 1:21.

Beginning with μὴ τῶν βοῶν, there follows now the interpretation of this law, given in the form of a twofold question which runs on to λέγει, first of all, negatively: God does not surely concern Himself about oxen? To modify this negation by an “only” (so Erasmus and many others, among whom is Rückert: “for nothing further than”) is unwarrantable, although even Tholuck’s view in its latest form still amounts to this (das A. T. im N. T., ed. 6, p. 40). What Paul means is, that this class of creatures, the oxen, are not the objects of the divine solicitude in that provision of the law; what expresses the care to be taken for the oxen, is said not for their sakes, but διʼ ἡμᾶς. Οὐ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόγων ὁ νόμος, ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν κ. λόγον ἐχόντων, Philo, de Sacrif. p. 251. Manifestly in this way the apostle sets aside[1425] the actual historical sense of that prohibition (Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21) in behalf of an allegorical sense,[1426] which, from the standpoint of a purely historic interpretation, is nothing but an application made “a minori ad majus” (comp Bava Mezia, f. 88). But this need not surprise us, considering the freedom used in the typico-allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, which regarded such an application as the reference of the utterance in question designed by God, and which from this standpoint did not take the historical sense into account along with the other at all. The interpreter, accordingly, who proceeds upon this method with regard to any particular passage does not call in question its historical meaning as such, considered in itself, but only (as was self-evident to his readers) as regards the higher typical destination of the words, inasmuch as he goes to work not as a historical, but as a typico-allegorical expositor. It is in the typical destination of the law in general (Colossians 2:17), whereby it pointed men above and beyond itself, that such a mode of procedure finds its justification, and on this ground it has both its freedom, according as each special case may require, and at the same time its ethical limit, in the necessity of being in harmony with what befitted God.

[1425] Not simply generalizes (Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 834 f.; comp. Neander), nor “subordinates the one to the other” (Osiander), nor the like, which run counter to the plain meaning of the words. Luther’s gloss, too, goes astray with a naive simplicity of its own: “God cares for all things; but He does not care that anything should be written for oxen, seeing that they cannot read.”

[1426] Comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 296.