Do I speak these things as a man, or does not the law also say these things?
Paul has just listed the soldier, the vine‑dresser and the shepherd, each of whom lives off his own work. Now he asks whether a servant of Christ's right to support is only human common sense, or whether God says the same.
Paul knew that some would treat his words as private opinion. So he appealed to an authority his critics could not brush aside.
"Do I say these things on human authority?" He was aware that his words might be criticised, and treated by some as merely his own, with no divine authority. So he hurries to back them up by appealing to the law of Moses. He knew that Jewish prejudice lay behind the opposition to his apostolic claims. He also knew that his opponents traded on Gentile ignorance to serve their own ends. So he does not quote the words of the Lord Jesus first. He cites the older command instead, to stop the mouths of such opponents more effectively.
Everyday life makes the point on its own. Does God's law say something different?
Everyone lives on the return of their work: soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human standards, no one can question how fitting this is. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It goes even further in the same direction. When God spoke of not muzzling the ox as it treads out the grain, He did not have cattle in view. He meant His people, His servants in the word.
Reason on its own is still one man's judgment, however spiritual the man. So the support for Paul's claim comes from more than one direction.
Spiritual reasoning in verse 7 supports the principle the apostle lays down. But then this was not only the word of a man — even of a spiritual man. The law spoke in exactly the same way. Deuteronomy 25:4 holds a small law that seems oddly placed there, and it set the principle with a humble working animal. The temple service and the Jewish altars also put it into practice. Finally, the Lord Himself ordained it for the present time.
Some fear that quoting Moses drags a believer back under law. Paul's own practice answers that fear.
Let no one think that it is legal to look into the requirements of the law and to profit by them. Does not the apostle Paul write, "Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?" For it is written in the Law of Moses… — and he builds an important truth on it.
The command Paul quotes is about an animal. Yet he claims it as instruction for gospel workers.
Verse 10 shows how freely the Spirit of grace applies all the Scriptures to the believer and his affairs, as parts of the "word of Christ." The words of Moses had to do with oxen. As far as Moses himself understood, they likely carried no further force. But the apostle is bold enough to claim them as a specific provision for himself and his fellow workers in the gospel. What Moses spoke was the word of God. God sees the end from the beginning, and He has sown seed in His earliest testimonies to bear fruit through time and into eternity.
Commentators differ on whether the command still had a literal force. One writer keeps both the literal and the spiritual sense.
Not that verse 9 means it had no literal reference to an ox. Of course the law expected the Jews to care properly for the life of their animals. Yet that was only minor compared with its spiritual meaning.
Paul's argument settles more than his own case. It sets out what the Lord has ordained for everyone who preaches.
The Lord has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. The priests and Levites of old lived on the offerings the people brought. It is the same now. God truly calls some to preach the gospel, Christ gifts them, and the Holy Spirit equips them. Those who give themselves steadily and diligently to that glorious work have a moral right to material support. It is not that they should look to those they preach to for a fixed sum. There is no such idea in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support.
- Question — Paul asks whether this is only human authority. He points to the law, so the claim rests on God, not on Paul.
- Agreement — Human reason and God's law say the same thing here, and the law says it more strongly.
- Freedom — Drawing on the law for instruction is not a return to legalism; Paul builds an important truth on it.
- Depth — A rule about an ox becomes a provision for the gospel worker, because the God who spoke through Moses sees the end from the beginning.
- Obligation — Those who preach have a right to support. But the worker looks to his Master for it, not to a fixed sum from his hearers.
For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that is treading out corn. Is God occupied about the oxen,
Some at Corinth whispered that Paul preached for money. He answers from one line of Moses about an ox at work, then asks whether God's concern in that law was really the animal — a question that touches how the Old Testament speaks to Christians, and how believers should support those who preach.
Paul writes here under attack.
False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed he preached and worked for selfish gain, and that he took the property of Christians by trading on their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.
Before quoting Moses, Paul points to the soldier, the farmer and the shepherd. The law does not merely echo common sense here; it presses the same point harder.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human reckoning no one can question how right this is. Did the law of God speak otherwise? The law is even stronger in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view but His people, His servants in the word.
The question is not a denial that God cares for animals. It asks what the greater purpose of the command was.
Was it really, after all, for the oxen that God cared so much? He does not, of course, mean to deny that God has care for oxen, but was that the great thing? Was there no higher purpose in such a principle as that? Does he not say it entirely, as the apostle puts it, for the sake of others — the ministers of His grace?
One writer keeps both sides in view.
Here is another strong proof that the Old Testament Scriptures were written especially for our benefit today. This quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 applies with far more force to the Church than to the case of a literal ox. That does not mean verse 9 denies any literal reference to an ox. Of course God expected the Jews to care properly for the life of their animals. Yet this was only minor compared to the spiritual meaning of it.
Paul takes a rule about farm animals and claims it for himself and his fellow workers.
The words of Moses had to do with oxen, and as far as the lawgiver understood, they likely went no further. But the apostle is bold enough to claim them as a definite provision for himself and his fellow workers in the gospel. What Moses spoke was the word of God. God sees the end from the beginning, and He has sown seed in His earliest testimonies to bear fruit through time and on into eternity.
Writers also read this verse as a statement about Scripture itself.
The law is the law of Moses (1 Cor. 9:9); and this is God's mind, taken for granted as being so. "Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" What Moses taught was what God taught.
This way of reading Scripture carries a danger, and one writer meets it head on.
The next commandment seems to come in very strangely, and only the spiritual sense, as the apostle gives it, explains it. Some object that this opens the door wide to very loose and fanciful explanations. No doubt that is to be feared. But the remedy is not to reject the principle; it is to guard the application strictly.
The New Testament picks up this same line again.
"For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages'" (1 Timothy 5:18). These words explain this verse, which would otherwise be rather unclear. The toiling ox is a picture of the servant and his ministry. And this has its rewards.
Commentators are careful about how this right works in practice.
It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain agreed sum. There is no such idea as this in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support.
The responsibility also runs the other way.
Let all who love the Lord be very careful not to neglect any true servant called by Him to His service. If we do so, we shall be flying in the face of His word, and so we ourselves will be the great losers.
- Ox — The command guards a real animal. But its weight lies elsewhere: God's care reaches past the ox to His servants.
- Author — Paul quotes Moses as God speaking. What Moses taught was what God taught, and God sees the end from the beginning.
- Application — The rule reaches past Israel to the Church. The one who labours in the word may live by that labour.
- Restraint — No agreed salary from the hearers. The worker looks to his Master alone for support.
- Warning — To neglect a true servant is to fly in the face of God's word. The loss falls on those who neglect him.
or does he say [it] altogether for our sakes? For for our sakes it has been written, that the plougher should plough in hope, and he that treads out corn, in hope of partaking of [it].
Paul quotes a line from the law of Moses about not muzzling an ox as it treads out grain. He says the words look past the animal to those who work for God, who plough and thresh expecting a share.
So was that old rule about a farm animal really written with us in mind?
Here is another strong confirmation that God wrote the Old Testament Scriptures for our benefit in this present day. This quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 applies with far more force to the Church than to a literal ox. This does not mean the command had no literal reference to an ox. The Jews of course had to care properly for the life of their animals. But that was minor compared with its spiritual meaning.
No reader of Deuteronomy could have guessed the use Paul would make of it.
The LORD wrote by Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." Who would have thought this had any bearing on believers now, in supporting those who preach the gospel?
The argument moves through soldier, vine-grower and shepherd before reaching the ox, and the imagery stays consistent all the way into the application.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human reckoning no one can dispute that this is right. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It speaks even more strongly in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view. He had His people in view, His servants in the word. The picture is kept up exactly. The one who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and the one who threshes ought to thresh in hope of sharing. That last phrase fits better, because the time for a share was clearly near.
Some object that reading law this way opens the door to fanciful interpretation. One writer answers that objection directly.
Wordsworth is right to dwell on the use the apostle makes of it. It shows "that the law has a spiritual sense, in which it is still binding upon all". It also gives "us the key by which we may unlock the casket and take out of it its treasures." Gosman objects that this "opens wide the door to a very loose and fanciful exposition." No doubt that is to be feared. But the remedy is not to reject the principle; it is to guard the application strictly.
In Deuteronomy this command stands beside rules about punishing a criminal. The contrast carries the point.
The ox pictures someone who labours for the Lord. He therefore has a right to the consideration of being supported by his work. One guilty of serious crime had to be punished (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), but one who laboured for the Lord had to be rewarded.
What the servant sows and what he receives are different in kind.
In speaking this way God is not thinking only of the oxen. He wrote it for our sakes. The one who ploughs and the one who threshes benefit from their work. In the same way, if the Lord's servants have sown "spiritual things", they have every right to receive "material things" in return.
Hope here is not vague optimism. It expects something real to come out of the work.
It is clear from the New Testament reference to the matter that there is to be a yield from the exercise. "He who threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop" (1 Cor. 9:10).
Because the harvest is still ahead, the working stretch of it is often hard, and that is exactly where hope is needed.
Do not lose heart. If we truly labour we must be in some measure in conflict, trial and sorrow. It is a work of faith, even if it is also a labour of love and a patience of hope. Blessed fruits do come along the way, and we may see them ripening. But the great harvest is the time of joy. A clear view of that harvest, and constant reference to it, gives our work a real, deep, holy character, like His own. It will prove real in that day.
- Written for us — God gave the command about the ox with today's people in view. Its care for animals was real, but minor beside its meaning for those who serve.
- Ploughed in hope — soldier, farmer, shepherd, ox: each lives on what his work returns. God's law leans that way even harder than human fairness does.
- Threshed in hope — the worker threshes with a share of the crop in view. Hope here expects a real yield.
- Shared in hope — those who have sown spiritual things have every right to receive material things back.
- Sustained by hope — the great harvest is still ahead, so work now runs through conflict and sorrow. The coming harvest keeps the worker from losing heart.
If we have sown to you spiritual things, [is it a] great [thing] if *we* shall reap your carnal things?
Paul has just claimed the same right other workers have: support from the people he serves. Verse 11 turns that right into a question. Is it too much for those who received the greater thing to give back the lesser?
Someone might object that a farmer eats the grain he threshes. A preacher asks for something different from what he sowed. Commentators note that verse 11 answers that objection.
It is worth noticing that verse 11 also guards against anyone who would object that the comparison fails. The labourer just described is paid in the very thing he works with, while the spiritual labourer might need help in the things of this life. The apostle meets this senseless or selfish objection by showing that a return is owed all the more, since what is of the Spirit far exceeds what is of the flesh.
The sentence weighs two things against each other, and readers often put the weight on the wrong side.
Many look at the second thing — giving to servants of our Lord Jesus Christ — as the "great thing." That is a mistake! The giving of spiritual things is what is truly great, and the other is only a right and ordinary return. The labourer must be supported. It is not good when those who benefit from his service neglect the one who sows spiritual things. Spiritual poverty may follow.
Verse 11 does not stand alone. Writers point to three separate arguments that all back the same right.
The rights of the servant remained, as pictured in the service connected with the temple and its altar. Above all, the apostle asserts that these rights follow what the Lord has ordained: "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel". Nature (verse 7), Scripture (verses 9, 10), and the direct command of the Lord (verses 13, 14) all agree. Each upholds the right of the one who ministers spiritual things to receive the material things of the saints.
The Scripture argument comes from the law about not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain. That rule about farm animals was written for people.
God is not thinking only of the oxen. It is written for our sakes. If the one who ploughs and the one who threshes benefit from their labours, so do the servants of the Lord. If they have sown "spiritual things", they have a full right to receive "material things" in return.
Paul states the right, then does without it himself. Writers set out what is normal, and where the virtue lies.
It is ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." That is plainly the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it, yet be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But note the difference. There is no virtue in refusing help when you already have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
Commentators also give his reason for not taking their support.
He judged that in their case the interests of the gospel of Christ would best be served by his suffering "all things", rather than by taking their "material things". In his service the apostle was not governed by the thought of gain, but by the interests of Christ and His gospel.
If support is a right, it could be mistaken for employment. Writers draw a sharp line here.
Here too God used the willing hands of His people. But no one understood that they "hired" him, or that he was their labourer. What they gave, they gave to God, and it was his privilege to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference. You cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" in this sense to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.
The loss in neglecting this falls on the givers, not only on the worker.
An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not help him. They would be losing one of their privileges.
- Sown. The spiritual seed comes first. The whole argument rests on what Paul gave before he asked for anything.
- Greater. What is of the Spirit far exceeds what is of the flesh, so the return asked for is small, not large.
- Ordinary. Giving material help back is the right and ordinary response — the truly great thing was the sowing.
- Confirmed. Nature, the law of Moses, and the Lord's own command all agree: the one who sows spiritual things may reap material things.
- Offered. What is given is offered to God, not paid to a hired man — and the assembly that withholds it loses a privilege of its own.