Study

3. My defense. Apart from the principal matter that he has at present in hand, it appears also to have been his intention to beat down, in passing, the calumnies of those who clamored against his call, as if he had been one of the ordinary class of ministers. “I am accustomed,” says he, “to put you forward as my shield, in the event of any one detracting from the honor of my Apostleship.” Hence it follows, that the Corinthians are injurious and inimical to themselves, if they do not acknowledge him as such, for if their faith was a solemn attestation of Paul’s Apostleship, and his defense, against slanderers, the one could not be invalidated without the other falling along with it.

Where others read — those who interrogate me, I have rendered it — those that examine me — for he refers to those who raised a dispute as to his Apostleship. ⁴⁸⁰⁴⁸⁰     “Ceux qui vouloyent mettre en debat son Apostolat, et le contreroller, comme on dit;” — “Those who were desirous to bring his Apostleship into dispute, and overhale it, as they say.” Latin writers, I confess, speak of a criminal being interrogated ⁴⁸¹⁴⁸¹     The expression is made use of by Suetonius. (Aug. 33.) Reum ita fertur interrogasse. He is said to have interrogated the criminal in such a manner.) — Ed. according to the laws, but the meaning of the word ἀνακρίνειν which Paul makes use of, seemed to me to be brought out better in this way.

4. Have we not power? He concludes from what has been already said, that he had a right to receive food and clothing from them, ⁴⁸²⁴⁸²     “Combion qu’il n’en air pus use;” — “Though he had not made use of it.” for Paul ate and drank, but not at the expense of the Church. This, then, was one liberty that he dispensed with. The other was, that he had not a wife — to be maintained, also, at the public expense. Eusebius infers from these words that Paul was married, but had left his wife somewhere, that she might not be a burden to the Churches, but there is no foundation for this, for he might bring forward this, even though unmarried. In honoring a Christian wife with the name of sister, he intimates, first of all, by this, how firm and lovely ought to be the connection between a pious pair, being held by a double tie. Farther he hints at the same time what modesty and honorable conduct ought to subsist between them. Hence, too, we may infer, how very far marriage is from being unsuitable to the ministers of the Church. I pass over the fact, that the Apostles made use of it, as to whose example we shall have occasion to speak ere long, but Paul here teaches, in general terms, what is allowable for all.

5. Even as the other Apostles. In addition to the Lord’s permission, he mentions the common practice of others. And with the view of bringing out more fully the waiving of his right, he proceeds step by step. In the first place, he brings forward the Apostles He then adds, “Nay, even the brethren of the Lord themselves also make use of it without hesitation — nay more, Peter himself, to whom the first place is assigned by consent of all, allows himself the same liberty.” By the brethren of the Lord, he means John and James, who were accounted pillars, as he states elsewhere. (Galatians 2:9.) And, agreeably to what is customary in Scripture, he gives the name of brethren to those who were connected with Him by relationship.

Now, if any one should think to establish Popery from this, he would act a ridiculous part. We confess that Peter was acknowledged as first among the Apostles, as it is necessary that in every society there should always be some one to preside over the others, and they were of their own accord prepared to respect Peter for the eminent endowments by which he was distinguished, as it is proper to esteem and honor all that excel in the gifts of God’s grace. That preeminence, however, was not lordship — nay more, it had nothing resembling lordship. For while he was eminent among the others, still he was subject to them as his colleagues. Farther, it is one thing to have pre-eminence in one Church, and quite another, to claim for one’s self a kingdom or dominion over the whole world. But indeed, even though we should concede everything as to Peter, what has this to do with the Pope? For as Matthias succeeded Judas, (Acts 1:26,) so some Judas might succeed Peter. Nay more, we see that during a period of more than nine hundred years among his successors, or at least among those who boast that they are his successors, there has not been one who was one whit better than Judas. This, however, is not the place to treat of these points. Consult my Institutes. (Volume 3.)

One thing farther must here be noticed, that the Apostles had no horror of marriage, which the Papal clergy so much abominate, as unbecoming the sanctity of their order. But it was after their time that that admirable discovery was made, that the priests of the Lord are polluted if they have intercourse with their lawful wives; and, at length matters came to such a pitch, that Pope Syricius did not hesitate to call marriage “a pollution of the flesh, in which no one can please God.” What then must become of the poor Apostles, who continued in that pollution until death? Here, however, they have contrived a refined subtilty to effect their escape; for they say that the Apostles gave up the use of the marriage bed, but led about their wives with them, that they might receive the fruits of the gospel, or, in other words, support at the public expense. As if they could not have been maintained by the Churches, unless they wandered about from place to place; and farther, as if it were a likely thing that they would run hither and thither of their own accord, and without any necessity, in order that they might live in idleness at the public expense! For as to the explanation given by Ambrose, as referring to other persons’ wives, who followed the Apostles for the purpose of hearing their doctrine, it is exceedingly forced.

7. Who hath gone a warfare at his own charges? It is the present tense that is used ⁴⁸³⁴⁸³     The verb is στρατεύεται, goeth a warfare, or serves as a soldier. — Ed as meaning — is accustomed to go a warfare. I have, however, with the view of taking off somewhat of the harshness, rendered it in the preterite. Now, by three comparisons, and these, too, taken from common life, he makes it out that it was allowable for him to live, if he chose, at the public expense of the Church, to show that he assumes nothing to himself but what human nature itself teaches us is reasonable. The first is taken from military law, for soldiers are wont to have their provisions furnished to them at the public expense. The second is taken from vine-dressers, for the husbandman plants a vine — not to throw away his pains, but to gather the fruit. The third is taken from keepers of cattle, for the shepherd does not lay out his labor for nothing, but eats of the milk of the flock — that is, he is supported from the produce. As natural equity points out this as reasonable, who will be so unjust as to refuse sustenance to the pastors of the Church? While it may happen, that some serve as soldiers at their own expense, as, for example, the Romans in ancient times, when no tribute was as yet paid, and there were no taxes, ⁴⁸⁴⁴⁸⁴     The Roman soldiers received no pay (stipendium) from the public expense until 347 years after the founding of Rome. (See Liv. 4. 59 and 5. 7.) — Ed. this does not militate against Paul’s statement, for he simply takes his argument from common and everywhere received practice.

8. Say I these things as a man? Lest any one should cavil, and say that in the things of the Lord the case is different, and therefore that he had to no purpose brought forward so many comparisons, he now adds, that the very same thing is commanded by the Lord. To speak as a man sometimes means — speaking according to the perverse judgment of the flesh, (as in Romans 3:5.) Here, however, it means — bringing forward only those things that are in common use among men, and are merely current (as they speak) in a human court. Now, that God himself designed that the labors of men should be remunerated by wages, he proves from this, that he prohibits the muzzling of the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; and with the view of applying it to the subject in hand, he says, that God was not concerned as to oxen, but rather had regard to men.

In the first place, it may be asked, Why has he more particularly selected this proof, while he had in the law passages that were much clearer? as for example, Deuteronomy 24:15,

The wages of the hireling shall not remain with thee over night.

If any one, however, will take a nearer view, he will acknowledge that there is more force in this quotation, in which the Lord requires cattle to be taken care of, for from this it is inferred, from the less to the greater, how much equity he requires among men, when he wishes that it should be shown to brute animals. When he says, that God does not take care for oxen, you are not to understand him as meaning to exclude oxen from the care of God’s Providence, inasmuch as he does not overlook even the least sparrow. (Matthew 6:26, and Matthew 10:29.) Nor is it as if he meant to expound that precept allegorically, as some hair-brained spirits take occasion from this to turn everything into allegories. Thus they turn dogs into men, trees into angels, and turn all scripture into a laughing-stock.

Paul’s meaning is simple — that, when the Lord enjoins humanity to oxen, he does not do it for the sake of oxen, but rather from a regard to men, on whose account, too, the very oxen were created. That compassion, therefore, towards oxen should be a stimulus to us to stir up to the exercise of humanity among us, as Solomon says, (Proverbs 12:10,)

The righteous man hath a care over his beast,
but the bowels of the wicked are cruel.

Let it then be understood by you, that God is not so concerned for oxen, as to have had merely a regard to oxen in making that law, for he had mankind in view, and wished to accustom them to equity, that they might not defraud the workman of his hire. For it is not the ox that has the principal part in plowing or treading out the corn, but man, by whose industry the ox himself is set to work. Hence, what he immediately adds — He that ploweth, should plow in hope, etc. is an exposition of the precept, as if he had said, that it extends generally to any kind of recompense for labor.

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. ⁴⁸⁵⁴⁸⁵     The common reading is — καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν τὢς ἐνπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν επ ᾿ ελπίδι, and he that thrasheth in hope should be a partaker of his hope In the other reading, the επ ᾿ ἐλπίδι (in hope) are omitted. The latter is the reading in five ancient and three later MSS. The common reading is construed by Bloomfield as follows — καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν (ὀφείλει ἀλοᾷν) επ ᾿ ἐλπίδι (τοῦ) μετέχειν τὢς ελπίδος αὐτοῦ “And he that thrasheth ought to thrash in hope to partake of (the fruits of) his hope.” — Ed 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 receiving the fruits. As it is so, we may infer, that this belongs to oxen also, but Paul’s intention was to extend it farther, and apply it principally to men. Now, the husbandman is said to be a partaker of his hope, when he enjoys the produce which he has obtained when reaping, but hoped for when plowing.

11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things There was one cavil remaining — for it might be objected, that labors connected with this life should without doubt have food and clothing as their reward; and that plowing and thrashing yield fruit, of which those that labor in these things are partakers; but that it is otherwise with the gospel, because its fruit is spiritual; and hence the minister of the word, if he would receive fruit corresponding to his labor, ought to demand nothing that is carnal. Lest any one, therefore, should cavil in this manner, he argues from the greater to the less. “Though food and clothing are not of the same nature with a minister’s labors, what injury do you sustain, if you recompense what is inestimable with a thing that is small and contemptible? For in proportion to the superiority of the soul above the body, does the word of the Lord excel outward sustenance, ⁴⁸⁶⁴⁸⁶     “Et le vestement;” — “And clothing.” inasmuch as it is the food of the soul.”

12. If others assume this power over you Again he establishes his own right from the example of others. For why should he alone be denied what others assumed as their due? For as no one labored more than he among the Corinthians, no one was more deserving of a reward. He does not, however, make mention of what he has done, but of what he would have done in accordance with his right, if he had not of his own accord refrained from using it.

But we have not used this power. He returns now to the point on which the matter hinges — that he had of his own accord given up that power which no one could refuse him, and that he was prepared rather to suffer all things, than by the use of his liberty throw any impediment in the way of the progress of the gospel. He wishes, therefore, that the Corinthians should, after his example, keep this end in view — to do nothing that would hinder or retard the progress of the gospel; for what he declares respecting himself it was their duty to perform according to their station; and he confirms here what he had said previously — that we must consider what is expedient (1 Corinthians 6:12.)

13. Know ye not, Apart from the question that he discusses, he appears to have dwelt the longer in taking notice of this point, with the view of reproaching the Corinthians indirectly for their malignity in allowing the ministers of Christ to be reviled in a matter that was so justifiable. For if Paul had not of his own accord refrained from using his liberty, there was a risk of the progress of the gospel being obstructed. Never would the false Apostles have gained that point, had not ingratitude, to which the Corinthians were already prone, opened up the way for their calumnies. For they ought to have repelled them sharply; but instead of this they showed themselves excessively credulous, so that they would have been prepared to reject the gospel, if Paul had used his right. Such contempt of the gospel, and such cruelty towards their Apostle, deserved to be more severely reproved; but Paul, having found another occasion, touches upon it indirectly and mildly, with his usual modesty, that he may admonish them without affronting them.

Again he makes use of a new comparison, to prove that he had not used the power that he had from the Lord. Nor does he any longer borrow examples from any other source, but shows that this has been appointed by the Lord — that the Churches should provide for the support of their ministers. There are some that think that there are two comparisons in this passage, and they refer the former to the Lord’s priests, and the latter to those that acted as priests to the heathen gods. I am, however, rather of opinion that Paul expresses, as he is accustomed, the same thing by different terms. And, truly, it would have been a weak argument that was derived from the practice of the heathens, among whom the revenues of the priesthood were not devoted to food and clothing, but to magnificent dresses, royal splendor, and profuse luxury. These would, therefore, have been things too remote. I do not call it in question, however, that he has pointed out different kinds of ministerial offices; for there were priests of a higher order, and there were afterwards Levites, who were inferior to them, as is well known; but that is not much to the point.

The sum is this — “The Levitical priests were ministers of the Israelitish Church; the Lord appointed them sustenance from their ministry; hence in ministers of the Christian Church the same equity must be observed at the present day. Now the ministers of the Christian Church are those that preach the gospel.” This passage is quoted by Canonists, when they wish to prove that idle bellies must be fattened up, in order that they may perform their masses; ⁴⁸⁸⁴⁸⁸     “Et autres brimborioas;” — “And other baubles.” but how absurdly, I leave it to children themselves to judge. Whatever is stated in the Scriptures as to the support to be given to ministers, or the honor that is to be put upon them, they immediately seize hold of it, and twist it to their own advantage. For my part, however, I simply admonish my readers to consider attentively Paul’s words. He argues that pastors, who labor in the preaching of the gospel, ought to be supported, because the Lord in ancient times appointed sustenance for the priests, on the ground of their serving the Church. Hence a distinction must be made between the ancient priesthood and that of the present day. Priests under the law were set apart to preside over the sacrifices, to serve the altar, and to take care of the tabernacle and temple. Those at the present day are set apart to preach the word and to dispense the sacraments. The Lord has appointed no sacrifices for his sacred ministers to be engaged in; ⁴⁸⁹⁴⁸⁹     “Auiourd’huy;” — “At the present day.” there are no altars for them to stand at to offer sacrifices.

Hence appears the absurdity of those who apply this comparison, taken from sacrifices, to anything else than to the preaching of the gospel. Nay farther, it may be readily inferred from this passage, that all Popish priests, from the head himself to the lowest member, are guilty of sacrilege, who devour the revenues appointed for true ministers, while they do not in any way discharge their duty. For what ministers does the Apostle order to be maintained? Those that apply themselves to the preaching of the gospel. What right then have they to claim for themselves the revenues of the priesthood? ⁴⁹⁰⁴⁹⁰     “De quel droict s’usurpent ces ventres paresseux le reuenu des benefices, qu’ils appelent?” — “By what right do these lazy bellies claim to themselves the revenue of the benefices, as they call it?” “Because they hum a tune and perform mass.” ⁴⁹¹⁴⁹¹     “Pource qu’ils gringotent des messes et anniuersaires;” — “Because they hum a tune at masses and anniversaries.” But God has enjoined upon them nothing of that sort. Hence it is evident that they seize upon the reward due to others. When, however, he says that the Levitical priests were partakers with the altar, and that they ate of the things of the Temple, he marks out (μετωνυμικῶς) by metonymy, the offerings that were presented to God. For they claimed to themselves the sacred victims entire, and of smaller animals they took the right shoulder, and kidneys and tail, and, besides this, tithes, oblations, and first-fruits. The word ἱερόν, therefore, in the second instance, ⁴⁹²⁴⁹²     In the original, the words τα ἱερὰ and τοῦ ἱεροῦ, occur in the same clause, and our Author’s meaning is, that in the second instance the noun ἱερον, denotes the temple. — Ed is taken to mean the Temple.