135
γὰρ ‘4 ‘ γραφή, Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ Σφιμώσεις 1. καὶ, Άξιος ὁ ἐργάτης ε Cf. Matt.
τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
iv. 35,1 Pet. ii. 15.
h John xviii. 29, Tit. i. 6, not LXX,
XX. το,
19. κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου ἢ κατηγορίαν μὴ ᾿ παρα- 34, Mark
1. 25, iv. 39, Luke i Acts xxii. 18
‘ov φιμ. βοῦν ado. ACP, 17, 37, 80, five others, f, vg., boh., syrpesh, arm.
γραφή The question has been pre- judged by supposed necessary limitations as to the earliest possible date for a gospel; and many have thought it safest to adopt Stier’s statement that ἄξιος, κ.τ.λ. Was a common proverb made use of both by our Lord (Luke x. 7; Matt. x. 10), and by St. Paul. Inthat case, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that St. Paul forgot that it was not ἡ γραφή; for here it is not natural to take ἄξιος, κ.τ.λ., as a supplementary or confirmatory statement by the writer in the words of a well-known proverb. The proverb, it it be such, is rather the second item in ἡ γραφή, just as in 2 Tim. ii. 19, the ‘seal’? consists of (a) ‘*The Lord knoweth them that are his,” and (6) “Let every one that nameth,” etc. Our Lord no doubt employed proverbs that were current in His time, ᾳ.σ., Luke iv. 23, John iv. 37. In both these cases He intimates that He is doing so; but He does not do so in Matt. x. 10, or Luke x. 7. Besides, while the variation here be- tween Matt. (τῆς τροφῆς) and Luke (τοῦ μισθοῦ) is of the same degree as in other cases of varying reports of Sayings from Q common to Matthew and Luke, yet such variation in wording is not likely in the case of a well-known proverb. We may add that it is difficult to know to what ruling of Christ reference is made in 1 Cor, ix. 14 if it be not this Saying. Critical opinion has recently grown in- clined to believe that much of the gospel material which underlies the Synoptists was put into writing before our Lord’s earthly ministry closed. (See Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p- 172.) The only question, therefore, is not, Could St. Paul have read the Evan- gelic narrative? but, Could he have co- ordinated a gospel document with the written oracles of God, venerated by every Hebrew as having a sanctity all their own? The question cannot be considered apart from what we know to have been St. Paul’s conception of the person of Jesus Christ. We may readily grant that it would be a surprising thing if St. Paul. thought of the writings of any contemporary apostle as ‘‘ Scripture,” as 2 Pet. iii. 16 does; but since he be- lieved that Christ was ‘‘the end of the
Law” (Rom. x. 4), it would be surprising were he not to have esteemed His words to be at least as authoritative as the Law which He superseded.
The order in Deut. xxv. 4 is οὐ dup. βοῦν ado. The same text is quoted, 1 Cor. ix. 9 in the form οὐ κημώσεις βοῦν ἆλο. (B*D*FG). St. Paul’s treatment of the command, as pointing to an analogy in the life of human beings, does not need any defence. Our just repudiation of the spirit in which he asks in 1 Cor., ‘Is it for the oxen that God careth?”’ must not blind us to the large element of truth in his answer, ‘‘ Yea, for our sake it was written”’.
Ver. 19. The mention of καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι, and of what was due to them, naturally suggests by contrast the consideration of unsatisfac- tory presbyters. Yet even these were to be protected against the possibility of arbitrary dismissal. They were to have a fair trial in accordance with the pro- visions of the Old Law, Deut. xix. 15 (see also Deut. xvii. 6, Num. \xxxv. 30. This requirement of two or three wit- nesses is used allegorically in 2 Cor. xiii. 1. Cf. John viii. 17, Heb. x. 28.) It has been asked, Why should this, the or- dinary rule, be mentioned at all? The solution is to be found in a consideration of the private, unofficial, character of the Christian Church when this epistle was written. The Church was altogether a voluntary society, unrecognised by the state. The crimes of which its governors could take cognisance were spiritual; or if they were such as were punishable by the ordinary state law, the Church was concerned only with the spiritual and moral aspect of them, that is to say, so far as they affected Church life. There were then no spiritual courts, in the later sense of the term. No Church officer could enforce any but spiritual punishments. In these circumstances, the observance of legal regulations would not be a matter of necessity. Indeed a superintendent who was jealous for the purity of the Church might feel himself justified in acting even on suspicion, when the question arose as to the dis- missal of a presbyter.