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.

altogether--Join this with "saith." "Does he (the divine lawgiver) by all means say it for our sakes?" It would be untrue, that God saith it altogether (in the sense of solely) for our sakes. But it is true, that He by all means saith it for our sakes as the ultimate object in the lower world.

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — starts-lowercase

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;” Luk 4:23, “Ye will ‘surely’ (πάντως pantōs certainly, surely, doubtless) say unto me this proverb,” etc.; Act 18:21, “I must ‘by all means’ (πάντως pantōs, certainly, surely) keep this feast; Act 21:22, “The multitude ‘must needs’ (πάντως pantōs, will certainly, surely, inevitably) come together,” etc.; Act 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 ... […]