Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that Paul had not been a witness of his life, doctrines, and death. Am I not free? Am I not a free man? have I not the liberty which all Christians possess, and especially which all the apostles possess? The liberty referred to here is doubtless the privilege or right of abstaining from labour; of enjoying, as others did, the domestic relations of life, and of a support as a public minister and apostle. Probably some had objected to his claims of apostleship, that he had not used this right, and that he was conscious that he had no claim to it. By this mode of interrogation he strongly implies that he was a free man, and that he had this right. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?-Here it is implied, and seems to be admitted by Paul, that in order to be an apostle, it was necessary to have seen the Saviour. This is often declared expressly. See Note on Acts i. 21, 22. The reason of this was, that the apostles were appointed to be witnesses of the life, doctrines, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and that in their being witnesses consisted the peculiarity of the apostolic office. That this was the case is abundantly manifest from Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. Luke xxiv. 48. Acts i. 21, 22; ii. 32; x. 39-41. Hence it was essential, in order that any one should be such a witness, and an apostle, that he should have seen the Lord Jesus. In the case of Paul, therefore, who was called to this office after the death and resurrection of the Saviour, and who had not, therefore, an opportunity of seeing and hearing him when living, this was provided for by the fact that the Lord Jesus showed himself to him after his death and ascension, in order that he might have this qualification for the apostolic office. (Acts ix. 3-5, 17.) To the fact of his having been thus in a miraculous manner qualified for the apostolic office, Paul frequently appeals, and always with the same view that it was necessary to have seen the Lord Jesus to qualify one for this office. (Acts xxii. 14, 15; xxvi. 16. 1 Cor. xv. 8.) It follows from this, therefore, that no one was an apostle in the strict and proper sense who had not seen the Lord Jesus. And it follows, also, that the apostles could have no successors in that which constituted the peculiarity of their office; and that the office must have commenced and ended with them. Are not ye my work in the Lord?-Have you not been converted by my labours, or under my ministry; and are ye not a proof that the Lord, when I have been claiming to be an apostle, has owned me as an apostle, and blessed me in this work? God would not give his sanction to an impostor, and a false pretender; and as Paul had laboured there as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly commissioned of God. minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his labours in proof that he is sent of Him. And one of the best of all arguments that a man is sent from God exists where multitudes of souls are converted from sin, and turned to holiness by his labours. What better credentials than this can a man need that he is in the employ of God? What more consoling to his own mind? What more satisfactory to the world?

A

doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

If I be not an apostle unto others." If I have not given evidence to others of my apostolic mission; of my being sent by the Lord Jesus, yet I have to you. Assuredly you, among whom I have laboured so long and so successfully, should not doubt that I am sent from the Lord. You have been well acquainted with me; you have witnessed my endowments, you have seen my success, and you have had abundant evidence that I have been sent on this great work. It is therefore strange in you to doubt my apostolic commission; and it is unkind in you so to construe my declining to accept your contributions and aid for my support, as if I were conscious | that I was not entitled to that." For the seal of mine apostleship.-Your conversion is the demonstration that I am an apostle. Paul uses strong language. He does not mean to say that their conversion furnished some evidence that he was an apostle; but that it was absolute proof, and '| irrefragable demonstration, that he was an apostle. A seal is that which is affixed to a deed. or other instrument, to make it firm, secure, and indisputable. It is the proof or demonstration of the validity of the conveyance, or of the writing. Notes, John iii. 33; vi. 27. The sense here is therefore, that the conversion of the Corinthians was a certain demonstration that he was an apostle, and should be so regarded by them, and treated by them. It was such a proof, (1.) Because Paul claimed to be an apostle while among them, and God blessed and owned this claim; (2.) Their conversion could not have been accomplished by man. It was the work of God. It was the evidence then which God gave to Paul and to them, that he was with him, and had sent him. (3.) They knew him, had seen him, heard him, were acquainted with his doctrines and manner of life, and could bear testimony to what he was, and what he taught. We may remark, that the conversion of sinners is the best evidence to a minister that he is sent of God. The divine blessing on his labours should cheer his heart, and lead him to believe that God has sent and that he approves him. And every minister should so live and labour, should so deny himself, that he may be able to appeal to the people among whom he labours that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus.

VER. 3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this;

Mine answer.Gr. Ἡ ἐμὴ ἀπολογία. Με apology; my defence. The same word occurs in Acts xxii. 1; xxv. 16. 2 Cor. vii. 11. Phil i. 7. 17. 2 Tim. iv. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 15. See Note, Acts xxii. 1. Here it means his answer, or defence against those who sat in judgment on his claims to be an apostle. To them that do eramine me.-To those who inquire of me; or who censure and condemn me as not having any claims to the apostolic office. The word used here (avaкpivo) is properly a forensic term, and is usually applied to judges in courts; to these VER. 2. If I be not an apostle unto others, yet who sit in judgment, and investigate and decide

[ocr errors]

in litigated cases brought before them. (Luke xxiii. 14. Acts iv. 9; xii. 19; xiv. 8.) The apostle here may possibly allude to the arrogance and pride of those who presumed to sit as judges on his qualification for the apostolic office. It is not meant that this answer had been given by Paul before this, but that this was the defence which he had to offer. Is this.—This which follows; the statements which are made in the following verses. In these statements (ver. 4-6, &c.) he seems to have designed to take up their objections to his apostolic claims one by one, and to show that they were of no force.

VER. 4. Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power, (¿ovoiav.)-Have we not the right. The word power here is evidently used in the sense of right, (comp. John i. 12, margin;) and the apostle means to say that though they had not exercised this right by demanding a maintenance, yet it was not because they were conscious that they had no such right, but because they chose to forego it for wise and important purposes. To eat and to drink.-To

be maintained at the expense of those among whom we labour. Have we not a right to demand that they shall yield us a proper support? By the interrogative form of the statement, Paul intends more strongly to affirm that they had such a right. The interrogative mode is often adopted to express the strongest affirmation. The objection here urged seems to have been this, "You, Paul and Barnabas, labour with your own hands. (Acts xviii. 3.) Other religious teachers lay claim to maintenance, and are supported without personal labour. This is the case with pagan and Jewish priests, and with Christian teachers among us. You must be conscious, therefore, that you are not apostles, and that you have no claim or right to support." To this the answer of Paul is, "We admit that we labour with our own hands. But your inference does not follow. It is not because we have not a right to such support, and it is not because we are conscious that we have no such claim, but it is for a higher purpose. It is because it will do good if we should not urge this right, and enforce this claim." That they had such a right, Paul proves at length in the subsequent part of the chapter. VER. 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

e Or, woman.

Have we not power?-Have we not a right? The objection here seems to have been, that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they travelled without wives. The objectors urged that others had wives, and that they took them with them, and expected provision to be made for them, as well as for themselves. They therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for their families, and that they were conscious that they were sent of God. But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship, and no right

66

[ocr errors]

to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right. To lead about.-To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place to place; and to have them maintained at the expense of the churches amongst which we labour. A sister, a wife.—Marg. or woman.' This phrase has much perplexed commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, A wife who should be a Christian, and regarded as sustaining the relation of a Christian sister." Probably Paul meant to advert to the fact that the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that it was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would be a Christian; or that he would marry no other. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 11. As well as other apostles. It is evident from this that the apostles generally were married. The phrase used here is οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι, (the remaining apostles, or it is right and proper for ministers to marry now, the other apostles.) And if they were married, whatever the papists may say to the contrary. It is safer to follow the example of the apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the apostles had wives with them on their They may journeys, may have been various. have been either to give instruction and counsel to those of their own sex to whom the apostles could not have access, or to minister to the wants of their husbands as they travelled. It is to be remembered that they travelled among heathens; they had no acquaintance and no friends there they therefore took with them their female friends and wives to minister to them, and sustain them in sickness, trial, &c. Paul says that he and Barnabas had a right to do this; but they had not used this right because they chose rather to make the gospel without charge, (ver. 18,) and that thus they judged they could do more good. It follows from this, (1.) That it is right for of the celibacy of the clergy is contrary to aposministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine tolic example. (2.) It is right for missionaries to marry, and to take their wives with them to heathen lands. The apostles were missionaries, sionaries do now, and there may be as good reaand spent their lives in heathen nations as missons for missionaries marrying now as there were then. (3.) Yet there are men, like Paul, who can do more good without being married. There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable that they should marry, and there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the unmarried state for a missionary as preferable and advisable. Probably the same is to be said of most missionaries at the present day, that they could do more good if unmarried, than they can if burdened with the cares of families. And as the brethren of the Lord.-The brothers of the Lord Jesus,— James and Joses, and Simon and Judas. (Matt. xiii. 55.) It seems from this, that although at first they did not believe in him, (John vii. 5,) and had regarded him as disgraced, (Mark iii. 21,) yet that they had subsequently become converted, and were employed as ministers and evangelists. It is evident also from the statement that they were married, and were attended with

their wives in their travels. And Cephas.-Peter. Note, John i. 42. This proves, (1.) as well as the declaration in Matt. viii. 14, that Peter had been married. (2.) That he had a wife after he became an apostle, and while engaged in the work of the ministry. (3.) That his wife accompanied him in his travels. (4.) That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be married now. Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter, the Pope of Rome, should forbid marriage, when Peter himself was married? Is it not a proof how little the papacy regards the Bible, and the example and authority of those from whom it pretends to derive its power? And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness everywhere, should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the Christian world? And is it not strange that this, with all the other corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted to be imposed on the enlightened people of the United States, as a part of the religion of Christ?

VER. 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we dpower to forbear working?

66

d 2 Thess. iii. 8, 9.

Or I only and Barnabas.— Paul and Barnabas had wrought together as tent-makers at Corinth. (Acts xviii. 3.) From this fact it had been inferred that they knew that they had no claim to a support. Power to forbear working.-To abstain from labour, and to receive support as others do. The question implies a strong affirmation that they had such power. The sense is, Why should I and Barnabas be regarded as having no right to support? Have we been less faithful than others? Have we done less? Have we given fewer evidences that we are sent by the Lord, or that God approves us in our work? Have we been less successful? Why then should we be singled out; and why should it be supposed that we are obliged to labour for our support? Is there no other conceivable reason why we should support ourselves than a consciousness that we have no right to support from the people with whom we labour?" It is evident from ver. 12 that Barnabas, as well as Paul, relinquished his right to a support, and laboured to maintain himself. And it is manifest from the whole passage, that there was some peculiar spleen" (Doddridge) against these two ministers of the gospel. What it was we know not. It might have arisen from the enmity and opposition of Judaizing teachers, who were offended at their zeal and success among the Gentiles, and who could find no other cause of complaint against them than that they chose to support themselves, and not live in idleness, or to tax the church for their support. That must have been a bad cause which was sustained by such an argument.

66

VER. 7. Who goeth a warfare "any time at his own charges? who planteth fa vineyard, and

e 1 Tim. i. 18. ƒ Deut. xx. 6. Ps. xxvii. 18.

eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth ga flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

g 1 Pet. v. 2.

Who goeth a warfare, &c.—Paul now proceeds to illustrate the right which he knew ministers had to a support, (ver. 7—14,) and then to show the reason why he had not availed himself of that right. (Ver. 15-23.) The right he illus trates from the nature of the case; (ver. 7, 11 ;) from the authority of Scripture; (ver. 8-10:) from the example of the priests under the Jewish law; (ver. 13;) and from the authority of Jesus Christ. (Ver. 14.) In this verse (7th) the right is enforced by the nature of the case, and by three illustrations. The first is, the right of a soldier or warrior to his wages. The Christian ministry is compared to a warfare, and the Christian minister to a soldier. Comp. 1 Tim. i. 18. The soldier had a right to receive pay from him who employed him. He did not go at his own expense. This was a matter of common equity; and on this principle all acted who enlisted as soldiers. So Paul says it is but equitable also that the soldier of the Lord Jesus should be sustained, and should not be required to support himself. And why, we may ask, should he be, any more than the man who devotes his strength, and time, and talents to the defence of his country? The work of the ministry is as arduous, and as self-denying, and perhaps as dangerous, as the work of a soldier: and common justice, therefore, demands that he who devotes his youth, and health, and life to it, for the benefit of others, should have a compe tent support. Why should not he receive a competent support who seeks to save men, as well as he who lives to destroy them? Why not he who endeavours to recover them to God. and make them pure and happy, as well as he who lives to destroy life, and pour out humar blood, and to fill the air with the shrieks of newmade widows and orphans? Or why not he who seeks, though in another mode, to defend the great interests of his country, and to maintain the interests of justice, truth, and mercy, for the benefit of mankind, as well as he who is willing in the tented field to spend his time, or exhaust his health and life, in protecting the rights of the nation? At his own charges.--His own expense. On the meaning of the word comp. Rom. vi. 23. charges," (oovioic,) see Note, Luke iii 14: 2 Cor. xi. 8. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testamen Who planteth a vineyard, &c.-This is the second illustration from the nature of the case, to show that ministers of the gospel have a right to supthat those who labour should have a fair comport. The argument is this: "It is reasonable pensation. A man who plants a vineyard does not expect to labour for nothing; he expects support from that labour, and looks for it from the vineyard. The vineyard owes its beauty, growth, and productiveness to him. It is reasonable, therefore, that from that vineyard he should receive a support, as a compensation for his toil. So we labour for your welfare. You derive advantage from our toil. We spend our

[ocr errors]

The argu

customed, especially in arguing with the Jews, to derive his proofs from the Old Testament. In the previous verse he had shown that it was equitable that ministers of the gospel should be supported. In this and the following verses he shows that the same principle was recognized and acted on under the Jewish dispensation. He does not mean to say, by this example of the ox treading out the corn, that the law, as given by Moses, referred to the Christian ministry; but that the principle there was settled, that the labourer should have a support, and that a suitable provision should not be withheld even from an ox; and if God so regarded the welfare of a brute when labouring, it was much more reasonable to suppose that he would require a suitable provision to be made for the ministers of religion.

VER. 9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

h Deut. xxv. 4. 1 Tim. v. 18.

time, and strength, and talent for your benefit; and it is reasonable that we should be supported while we thus labour for your good." The church of God is often compared to a vineyard; and this adds to the beauty of this illustration. See Isa. v. 1-4. Notes, Luke xx. 9—16. Who feedeth a flock, &c.-This is the third illustration drawn from the nature of the case, to show that ministers have a right to support. The word "feedeth" (oquaive) denotes not only to feed, but to guard, protect, defend, as a shepherd does his flock. See Notes, John xxi. 15-17. “The wages of the shepherds in the East do not consist of ready money, but in a part of the milk of the flocks which they tend. Thus Spon says of the shepherds in modern Greece, These shep| herds are poor Albanians, who feed the cattle, and live in huts built of rushes; they have a tenth part of the milk and of the lambs, which is their whole wages: the cattle belong to the Turks.' The shepherds in Ethiopia, also, according to Alvarez, have no pay except the milk and butter which they obtain from the cows, and on which they and their families subsist."Rosenmüller. The church is often compared to a flock. See Note, John x. 1, &c. For it is written.-Deut. xxv. 4. In the law of ment here is this: "A shepherd spends his days Moses. See Note, Luke xxiv. 44. Thou shalt and nights in guarding his folds. He leads his not muzzle the mouth, &c.-To muzzle, means flock to green pastures, he conducts them to "to bind the mouth; to fasten the mouth to prestill waters; (comp. Ps. xxiii. 2;) he defends vent eating or biting."-Webster. This was done them from enemies; he guards the young, the either by passing straps around the mouth, or by sick, the feeble, &c. He spends his time in pro- placing, as is now sometimes done, a small bastecting it and providing for it. He expects sup-ket over the mouth, fastened by straps to the port, when in the wilderness or in the pastures, mainly from the milk which the flock should furnish. He labours for their comfort; and it is proper that he should derive a maintenance from them, and he has a right to it. So the minister of the gospel watches for the good of souls. He devotes his time, strength, learning, talents, to their welfare. He instructs, guides, directs, defends; he endeavours to guard them against their spiritual enemies, and to lead them in the path of comfort and peace. He lives to instruct the ignorant; to warn and secure those who are in danger; to guide the perplexed; to reclaim the wandering; to comfort the afflicted; to bind up the broken in heart; to attend on the sick; to be an example and an instructor to the young; and to be a counsellor and a pattern to all. he labours for their good, it is no more than equal and right that they should minister to his temporal wants, and compensate him for his efforts to promote their happiness and salvation. And can any man say that this is not right and just?

As

VER. 8. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

Say I these things as a man?-Do I speak this on my own authority, or without the sanction of God? Is not this, which appears to be so reasonable and equitable, also supported by the authority of God? Or saith not the law the same also?-The law of Moses, to which the Jewish part of the church at Corinth-which probably had mainly urged these objectionsprofessed to bow with deference. Paul was ac

ses.

horns of the animal, so as to prevent its eating, but not to impede its breathing freely. This was an instance of the humanity of the laws of MoThe idea is, that the ox should not be prevented from eating when it was in the midst of food; and that as it laboured for its owner, it was entitled to support; and there was a propriety that it should be permitted to partake of the grain which it was threshing. That treadeth, &c. -This was one of the common modes of threshing in the East, as it is with us. See Note, and illustration on Matt. iii. 12. The corn.--The grain, of any kind; wheat, rye, barley, &c. Maize, to which we apply the word "corn," was then unknown. See Note on Matt. xii. 1. Doth God take care for oxen? - Doth God take care for oxen ONLY? Or is not this rather a principle, which shows God's care for all that labour, and the humanity and equity of his laws? And if he is so solicitous about the welfare of brutes, as to frame an express law in their behalf, is it not to be presumed that the same principle of humanity and equity will run through all his dealings and requirements? The apostle does not mean to deny that God does take care for oxen, for the very law was proof that he did; but he means to ask whether it is to be supposed that God would regard the comfort of oxen, and not of men also? whether we are not to suppose that the same principle would apply also to those who labour in the service of God? He uses this passage, therefore, not as originally having reference to men, or to ministers of the gospel, which cannot be; but as establishing a general principle in regard to the equity and humanity of the divine laws; and as thus showing that the spirit

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

i 2 Tim. ii. 6.

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes?—The word altogether" (avroc) 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" (návτwc) does not of necessity require this interpretation. It may be rendered "chiefly, mainly, principally, or doubtless;" Luke iv. 23, "Ye will surely' (návrwe, certainly, surely, doubtless) say unto me this proverb," &c. Acts xviii. 21," I must by all means' (návrwc, certainly, surely) keep this feast." Acts xxi. 22, The multitude must needs' (πávτog, will certainly, surely, inevitably) come together," &c. Acts xxviii. 4, "No doubt' (Távrwe) this man is a murderer," &c. 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, &c.-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, &c.-The Greek in this place would be more literally and more properly rendered, For (ört) he that ploweth OUGHT (optiλ) to plow in hope;" i. e. in hope of reaping a harvest, or of obtaining success in his labours: 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 labours. 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 labour 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, &c.-This sentence, in the Greek, is very elliptical and obscure; but the sense is, evidently, He that thresheth ought to partake of his hope;" i, e. of the fruits of his hope, or

66

66

[ocr errors]

of the result of his labour. 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 Tim. ii. 6: The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits."

VER. 11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

k Rom. xv. 27.

If we have sown unto you spiritual things.—If ¦ we have been the means of imparting to you the gospel, and bestowing upon you its high hopes and privileges. See Note, Rom. xv. 27. The figure of sowing, to denote the preaching of the gospel, is not unfrequently employed in the Scriptures. See John iv. 37, and the parable of the sower, Matt. xiii. 3, &c. Is it a great thing, &c.-Note, Rom. xv. 27. Is it to be regarded as unequal, unjust, or burdensome? Is it to be supposed that we are receiving that for which we | have not rendered a valuable consideration? The sense is, "We impart blessings of more value than we receive. We receive a supply of our temporal wants. We impart to you, under the divine blessing, the gospel, with all its hopes and consolations. We make you acquainted with God; with the plan of salvation; with the hope of heaven. We instruct your children; we guide you in the path of comfort and peace: we raise you from the degradations of idolatry and of sin; and we open before you the hope of the resurrection of the just, and of all the bliss of heaven and to do this, we give ourselves to toil and peril by land and by sea. And can it be made a matter of question whether all these high and exalted hopes are of as much value to dying man as the small amount which shall be needful to minister to the wants of those who are the means of imparting these blessings?" Paul says this, therefore, from the reasonableness of the case. The propriety of support might be further urged, (1.) Because without it the min'stry would be comparatively useless. Ministers like physicians, lawyers, and farmers, should be allowed to attend mainly to the great business of their lives, and to their appropriate work. No physician, no farmer, no mechanic, could accomplish much, if his attention was constantly turned off from his appropriate business to engage in something else. And how can the minister of the gospel, if his time is nearly all taken up in labouring to provide for the wants of his family? (2.) The great mass of ministers spend their earlys days, and many of them all their property, in preparing to preach the gospel to others. And as the mechanic who has spent his early years in learning a trade, and the physician and lawyer in preparing for their profession, receive support ia that calling, why should not the minister of the gospel? (3.) Men, in other things, cheerfully pay those who labour for them. sate the schoolmaster, the physician, the lawyer, the merchant, the mechanic; and they do it cheerfully, because they suppose they receive a

They compen

« AnteriorContinuar »