1 Corinthians 9:10

THE MESSAGE

Parallel Translations

Easy-to-Read Version
He was really talking about us. Yes, that was written for us. The one who plows and the one who separates the grain should both expect to get some of the grain for their work.

Revised Standard Version
Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop.

Tyndale New Testament (1525)
Ether sayth he it not all to gedder for oure sakes? For oure sakes no doute this is written: that he which eareth shuld eare in hope: and that he which thressheth in hope shuld be parttaker of his hope.

Hebrew Names Version
or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope.

International Standard Version
Isn't he really speaking on our behalf? Yes, this was written on our behalf, because the one who plows should plow in hope, and the one who threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.2 Timothy 2:6;">[xr]

New American Standard Bible
Or is He speaking entirely for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing in the crops.

New Century Version
He was really talking about us. Yes, that Scripture was written for us, because it goes on to say: "The one who plows and the one who works in the grain should hope to get some of the grain for their work."

Update Bible Version
or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written: because he that plows ought to plow in hope, and he that threshes, [to thresh] in hope of partaking.

Webster's Bible Translation
Or saith he [this] altogether for our sakes? for our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

English Standard Version
Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

World English Bible
or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope.

Wesley's New Testament (1755)
Or speaketh he chiefly for our sakes? surely for our sakes it was written: for he who ploweth, ought to plow in hope; and he that thresheth in hope, ought to be a partaker of his hope.

Weymouth's New Testament
Is God simply thinking about the oxen? Or is it really in our interest that He speaks? Of course, it was written in our interest, because it is His will that when a plough-man ploughs, and a thresher threshes, it should be in the hope of sharing that which comes as the result.

Wycliffe Bible (1395)
Whether for vs he seith these thingis? For whi tho ben writun for vs; for he that erith, owith to ere in hope, and he that threischith, in hope to take fruytis.

English Revised Version
or saith he it altogether for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, [to thresh] in hope of partaking.

Berean Standard Bible
Isn't He actually speaking on our behalf? Indeed, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they should also expect to share in the harvest.

Contemporary English Version
No, he wasn't! He was talking about us. This was written in the Scriptures so that all who plow and all who grind the grain will look forward to sharing in the harvest.

Amplified Bible
Or does He speak entirely for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake: The plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the harvest.

American Standard Version
or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking.

Bible in Basic English
Or has he us in mind? Yes, it was said for us; because it is right for the ploughman to do his ploughing in hope, and for him who is crushing the grain to do his work hoping for a part in the fruits of it.

Complete Jewish Bible
all the more does he say this for our sakes. Yes, it was written for us, meaning that he who plows and he who threshes should work expecting to get a share of the crop.

Darby Translation
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].

Etheridge Translation
But it is evident that on our account this is said; for on our account it is written, because that in hope it behoveth the ploughman to plough, and him who thresheth, in hope of provision (to thresh).

Murdock Translation
But manifest it is, for whose sake he said it. And indeed, for our sakes it was written: because the plougher ought to plough in hope, and the thresher in hope of fruit.

King James Version (1611)
Or saith hee it altogether for our sakes? for our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that hee that ploweth, should plow in hope: and that hee that thresheth in hope, should bee partaker of his hope.

New Living Translation
Wasn't he actually speaking to us? Yes, it was written for us, so that the one who plows and the one who threshes the grain might both expect a share of the harvest.

New Life Bible
Did not God speak about this because of us. For sure, this was written for us. The man who gets the fields ready and the man who gathers in the grain should expect some of the grain.

New Revised Standard
Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop.

Geneva Bible (1587)
Either saith hee it not altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt it is written, that he which eareth, should eare in hope, & that he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope.

George Lamsa Translation
No. It is known that he said it for our sakes and it was written for our sakes because the ploughman must plough in hope, and he who threshes, threshes in hope of the crop.

J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible
Or, for our sakes altogether, is he saying it? For our sakes, it was written; because, he that ploweth, ought, to plow, in hope, - and, he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Or doth he say this indeed for our sakes? For these things are written for our sakes: that he that plougheth, should plough in hope and he that thrasheth, in hope to receive fruit.

Bishop's Bible (1568)
Either sayth he it not altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written, that he which eareth, should eare in hope: & that he which tressheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope.

Good News Translation
Didn't he really mean us when he said that? Of course that was written for us. Anyone who plows and anyone who reaps should do their work in the hope of getting a share of the crop.

Christian Standard Bible®
Isn’t he really saying it for our sake? Yes, this is written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes should thresh in hope of sharing the crop.

King James Version
Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Lexham English Bible
Or doubtless does he speak for our sake? For it is written for our sake, because the one who plows ought to plow in hope and the one who threshes ought to do so in hope of a share.

Literal Translation
Or does He say it altogether because of us? It is written because of us, so that the one plowing ought to plow in hope, and the one threshing in hope to partake of hope.

Young's Literal Translation
or because of us by all means doth He say [it]? yes, because of us it was written, because in hope ought the plower to plow, and he who is treading [ought] of his hope to partake in hope.

Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)
Or sayeth he it not alltogether for oure sakes? For no doute it is wrytte for oure sakes. For he that eareth, shulde eare vpon hope: and he yt throssheth, shulde trosshe vpon hope, yt he mighte be partaker of his hope.

Mace New Testament (1729)
or is it said, no doubt, for our sakes? for our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he who plows should plow in hope; and that he who thresheth should expect the advantage.

New English Translation
Or is he not surely speaking for our benefit? It was written for us, because the one plowing and threshing ought to work in hope of enjoying the harvest.

New King James Version
Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Simplified Cowboy Version
Wasn't this an illustration about us? Yes, it was. The cowboys all get a share of the meat regardless if they do the calving, the gathering, or the roping and doctoring.

New American Standard Bible (1995)
Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

Legacy Standard Bible
Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

Contextual Overview

³I'm not shy in standing up to my critics. We who are on missionary assignments for God have a right to decent accommodations, and we have a right to support for us and our families. You don't seem to have raised questions with the other apostles and our Master's brothers and Peter in these matters. So, why me? Is it just Barnabas and I who have to go it alone and pay our own way? Are soldiers self-employed? Are gardeners forbidden to eat vegetables from their own gardens? Don't milkmaids get to drink their fill from the pail? ⁸I'm not just sounding off because I'm irritated. This is all written in the scriptural law. Moses wrote, "Don't muzzle an ox to keep it from eating the grain when it's threshing." Do you think Moses' primary concern was the care of farm animals? Don't you think his concern extends to us? Of course. Farmers plow and thresh expecting something when the crop comes in. So if we have planted spiritual seed among you, is it out of line to expect a meal or two from you? Others demand plenty from you in these ways. Don't we who have never demanded deserve even more? But we're not going to start demanding now what we've always had a perfect right to. Our decision all along has been to put up with anything rather than to get in the way or detract from the Message of Christ. All I'm concerned with right now is that you not use our decision to take advantage of others, depriving them of what is rightly theirs. You know, don't you, that it's always been taken for granted that those who work in the Temple live off the proceeds of the Temple, and that those who offer sacrifices at the altar eat their meals from what has been sacrificed? Along the same lines, the Master directed that those who spread the Message be supported by those who believe the Message. Still, I want it made clear that I've never gotten anything out of this for myself, and that I'm not writing now to get something. I'd rather die than give anyone ammunition to discredit me or impugn my motives. If I proclaim the Message, it's not to get something out of it for myself. I'm compelled to do it, and doomed if I don't! If this was my own idea of just another way to make a living, I'd expect some pay. But since it's not my idea but something solemnly entrusted to me, why would I expect to get paid? So am I getting anything out of it? Yes, as a matter of fact: the pleasure of proclaiming the Message at no cost to you. You don't even have to pay my expenses! Even though I am free of the demands and expectations of everyone, I have voluntarily become a servant to any and all in order to reach a wide range of people: religious, nonreligious, meticulous moralists, loose-living immoralists, the defeated, the demoralized—whoever. I didn't take on their way of life. I kept my bearings in Christ—but I entered their world and tried to experience things from their point of view. I've become just about every sort of servant there is in my attempts to lead those I meet into a God-saved life. I did all this because of the Message. I didn't just want to talk about it; I wanted to be in on it! You've all been to the stadium and seen the athletes race. Everyone runs; one wins. Run to win. All good athletes train hard. They do it for a gold medal that tarnishes and fades. You're after one that's gold eternally. I don't know about you, but I'm running hard for the finish line. I'm giving it everything I've got. No sloppy living for me! I'm staying alert and in top condition. I'm not going to get caught napping, telling everyone else all about it and then missing out myself. ¹³ And don't tell me that I have no authority to write like this. I'm perfectly free to do this—isn't that obvious? Haven't I been given a job to do? Wasn't I commissioned to this work in a face-to-face meeting with Jesus, our Master? Aren't you yourselves proof of the good work that I've done for the Master? Even if no one else admits the authority of my commission, you can't deny it. Why, my work with you is living proof of my authority! I'm not shy in standing up to my critics. We who are on missionary assignments for God have a right to decent accommodations, and we have a right to support for us and our families. You don't seem to have raised questions with the other apostles and our Master's brothers and Peter in these matters. So, why me? Is it just Barnabas and I who have to go it alone and pay our own way? Are soldiers self-employed? Are gardeners forbidden to eat vegetables from their own gardens? Don't milkmaids get to drink their fill from the pail? I'm not just sounding off because I'm irritated. This is all written in the scriptural law. Moses wrote, "Don't muzzle an ox to keep it from eating the grain when it's threshing." Do you think Moses' primary concern was the care of farm animals? Don't you think his concern extends to us? Of course. Farmers plow and thresh expecting something when the crop comes in. So if we have planted spiritual seed among you, is it out of line to expect a meal or two from you? Others demand plenty from you in these ways. Don't we who have never demanded deserve even more? But we're not going to start demanding now what we've always had a perfect right to. Our decision all along has been to put up with anything rather than to get in the way or detract from the Message of Christ. All I'm concerned with right now is that you not use our decision to take advantage of others, depriving them of what is rightly theirs. You know, don't you, that it's always been taken for granted that those who work in the Temple live off the proceeds of the Temple, and that those who offer sacrifices at the altar eat their meals from what has been sacrificed? Along the same lines, the Master directed that those who spread the Message be supported by those who believe the Message. Still, I want it made clear that I've never gotten anything out of this for myself, and that I'm not writing now to get something. I'd rather die than give anyone ammunition to discredit me or impugn my motives. If I proclaim the Message, it's not to get something out of it for myself. I'm compelled to do it, and doomed if I don't! If this was my own idea of just another way to make a living, I'd expect some pay. But since it's not my idea but something solemnly entrusted to me, why would I expect to get paid? So am I getting anything out of it? Yes, as a matter of fact: the pleasure of proclaiming the Message at no cost to you. You don't even have to pay my expenses! Even though I am free of the demands and expectations of everyone, I have voluntarily become a servant to any and all in order to reach a wide range of people: religious, nonreligious, meticulous moralists, loose-living immoralists, the defeated, the demoralized—whoever. I didn't take on their way of life. I kept my bearings in Christ—but I entered their world and tried to experience things from their point of view. I've become just about every sort of servant there is in my attempts to lead those I meet into a God-saved life. I did all this because of the Message. I didn't just want to talk about it; I wanted to be in on it! You've all been to the stadium and seen the athletes race. Everyone runs; one wins. Run to win. All good athletes train hard. They do it for a gold medal that tarnishes and fades. You're after one that's gold eternally. I don't know about you, but I'm running hard for the finish line. I'm giving it everything I've got. No sloppy living for me! I'm staying alert and in top condition. I'm not going to get caught napping, telling everyone else all about it and then missing out myself. ¹⁴ And don't tell me that I have no authority to write like this. I'm perfectly free to do this—isn't that obvious? Haven't I been given a job to do? Wasn't I commissioned to this work in a face-to-face meeting with Jesus, our Master? Aren't you yourselves proof of the good work that I've done for the Master? Even if no one else admits the authority of my commission, you can't deny it. Why, my work with you is living proof of my authority! I'm not shy in standing up to my critics. We who are on missionary assignments for God have a right to decent accommodations, and we have a right to support for us and our families. You don't seem to have raised questions with the other apostles and our Master's brothers and Peter in these matters. So, why me? Is it just Barnabas and I who have to go it alone and pay our own way? Are soldiers self-employed? Are gardeners forbidden to eat vegetables from their own gardens? Don't milkmaids get to drink their fill from the pail? I'm not just sounding off because I'm irritated. This is all written in the scriptural law. Moses wrote, "Don't muzzle an ox to keep it from eating the grain when it's threshing." Do you think Moses' primary concern was the care of farm animals? Don't you think his concern extends to us? Of course. Farmers plow and thresh expecting something when the crop comes in. So if we have planted spiritual seed among you, is it out of line to expect a meal or two from you? Others demand plenty from you in these ways. Don't we who have never demanded deserve even more? But we're not going to start demanding now what we've always had a perfect right to. Our decision all along has been to put up with anything rather than to get in the way or detract from the Message of Christ. All I'm concerned with right now is that you not use our decision to take advantage of others, depriving them of what is rightly theirs. You know, don't you, that it's always been taken for granted that those who work in the Temple live off the proceeds of the Temple, and that those who offer sacrifices at the altar eat their meals from what has been sacrificed? Along the same lines, the Master directed that those who spread the Message be supported by those who believe the Message.

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

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

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

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

Cross-References

Genesis 8:1
Then God turned his attention to Noah and all the wild animals and farm animals with him on the ship. God caused the wind to blow and the floodwaters began to go down. The underground springs were shut off, the windows of Heaven closed and the rain quit. Inch by inch the water lowered. After 150 days the worst was over.

Genesis 9:1
God blessed Noah and his sons: He said, "Prosper! Reproduce! Fill the Earth! Every living creature—birds, animals, fish—will fall under your spell and be afraid of you. You're responsible for them. All living creatures are yours for food; just as I gave you the plants, now I give you everything else. Except for meat with its lifeblood still in it—don't eat that.

Genesis 9:5
"But your own lifeblood I will avenge; I will avenge it against both animals and other humans.

Genesis 9:6
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans let his blood be shed, Because God made humans in his image reflecting God's very nature. You're here to bear fruit, reproduce, lavish life on the Earth, live bountifully!"

Psalms 145:9
God is good to one and all; everything he does is suffused with grace.

Gill's Notes on the Bible

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes,.... That is, God says this, or delivers out this law, forbidding the muzzling the ox, while it treads out the corn; not merely for the sake of the ox, but chiefly for the sake of men; and so Jarchi upon the place says, that the ox is mentioned, להוציא את אדם, "to express man"; and so another of the Jewish writers m interprets the law in Deuteronomy 22:6. "Thou shalt not take the dam with the young";

"the intention of the command is, not to have mercy on birds, "but for the sake of men", he (God) says this, whom he would accustom to meekness and compassion:''

and particularly this is here said, for the sake of ministers of the Gospel, who for their spiritual strength, and labours in their work, may be compared to oxen; see Ezekiel 1:10. This law is elsewhere produced by the apostle, and urged in favour of the maintenance of ministers, as here, 1 Timothy 5:17 and therefore

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

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

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

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

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? - The word “altogether” (πάντως pantōs) cannot mean that this was the “sole” and “only” design of the law, to teach that ministers of the gospel were entitled to support; for:

(1) This would be directly contrary to the law itself, which had some direct and undoubted reference to oxen;

(2) The scope of the argument here does not require this interpretation, since the whole object will be met by supposing that this settled a “principle” of humanity and equity in the divine law, according to which it was “proper” that ministers should have a support; and,

(3) The word “altogether” (πάντως pantōs) does not of necessity require this interpretation. It may be rendered “chiefly, mainly, principally, or doubtless;” Luke 4:23, “Ye will ‘surely’ (πάντως pantōs certainly, surely, doubtless) say unto me this proverb,” etc.; Acts 18:21, “I must ‘by all means’ (πάντως pantōs, certainly, surely) keep this feast; Acts 21:22, “The multitude ‘must needs’ (πάντως pantōs, will certainly, surely, inevitably) come together,” etc.; Acts 28:4, “‘No doubt’ (πάντως pantōs) this man is a murderer,” etc. The word here, therefore, means that the “principle” stated in the law about the oxen was so broad and humane, that it might “certainly, surely, particularly” be regarded as applicable to the case under consideration. An important and material argument might be drawn from it; an argument from the less to the greater. The precept enjoined justice, equity, humanity; and that was more applicable to the case of the ministers of the gospel than to the case of oxen.

For our sakes ... - To show that the laws and requirements of God are humane, kind, and equitable; not that Moses had Paul or any other minister in his eye, but the “principle” was one that applied particularly to this case.

That he that ploweth ... - The Greek in this place would be more literally and more properly rendered, “For (ὅτι hoti) he that ploweth ought (ὀφείλει opheilei) to plow in hope;” that is, in hope of reaping a harvest, or of obtaining success in his labors; and the sense is, “The man who cultivates the earth, in order that he may be excited to industry and diligence, ought to have a reasonable prospect that he shall himself be permitted to enjoy the fruit of his labors. This is the case with those who do plow; and if this should be the case with those who cultivate the earth, it is as certainly reasonable that those who labor in God’s husbandry, and who devote their strength to his service, should be encouraged with a reasonable prospect of success and support.”

And that he that thresheth ... - This sentence, in the Greek, is very elliptical and obscure; but the sense is, evidently, “He that thresheth ‘ought’ to partake of his hope;” that is, of the fruits of his hope, or of the result of his labor. It is fair and right that he should enjoy the fruits of his toil. So in God’s husbandry; it is right and proper that they who toil for the advancement of his cause should be supported and rewarded.” The same sentiment is expressed in 2 Timothy 2:6, “The husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits.”

Clarke's Notes on the Bible

Verse 1 Corinthians 9:10. And he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. — Instead of ὁ αλοων της ελπιδος αυτου μετεχειν, επ' ελπιδι, many of the best MSS. and versions read the passage thus: ὁ αλοων επ' ελπιδι του μετεχειν· And he who thresheth in hope of partaking. "The words της ελπιδος, which are omitted by the above, are," says Bp. Pearce, "superfluous, if not wrong; for men do not live in hope to partake of their hope, but to partake of what was the object and end of their hope. When these words are left out, the former and latter sentence will be both of a piece, and more resembling each other: for μετεχειν may be understood after the first επ ελπιδι, as well as after the last." Griesbach has left the words in question out of the text.