OF MUZZLES AND OXEN: DEUTERONOMY 25:4 AND 1 CORINTHIANS 9:9

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2006 by Verbruggen, Jan L

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

In Deut 25:4, we find the short apodictic statement, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing."1 Paul quotes this verse in 1 Cor 9:9 and 1 Tim 5:18 to make the point that a minister of the gospel should be allowed to live from his work. Various scholars have spent a great deal of effort investigating how Paul used this text. Did he cite Deut 25:4 in an allegorical, a typological, or an analogical way?2 However, very little discussion has centered on establishing the meaning of the OT verse (Deut 25:4) in its literary context. In this article, we will first analyze the meaning of the verse in Deuteronomy. How does this verse fit into the broader context of Deuteronomy 24-25? Is Paul reading this verse in the same way as the author of Deuteronomy intended it?

1. THE INTERPRETATION OF DEUTERONOMY 25:4

1. Survey of interpretations. Most scholars comment on the meaning of this verse with the NT references in mind. We can identify three different interpretations in the various commentaries. The first interpretation views this passage as a proverbial saying, not really applicable to an ox, but showing concern with the laborer and his wages.3 The second interpretation focuses on the humanitarian character of the law: the concern is for the care of the animal.4 The third interpretation is very similar, but understands that the concern for the animal shown is a natural outcome for the care that should be given to the weak in a society, that is, the widow, the orphan, and the alien, but is here extended to include also the animals.5

2. The traditional interpretation. From all this we may conclude that the most common, traditional interpretation of this verse is the humanitarian notion that a man was not allowed to muzzle his ox while it was working, thus preventing the ox from eating. This was inhumane because the animal, which was helping to provide for the food of the community, deserved better. The humanitarian character of the Law in general is often stressed, using the law in Deut 25:4 as an example that the law is even humane towards the animals (at least here represented by the bovine class of the animals).

Most commentators make some observations as to the appropriateness of Paul's quotation and his use of this text to support the idea that workers of the gospel deserve to be supported by the people to whom they are ministering.

3. Problems with the traditional interpretation. First, we must note that the traditional interpretation presumes to read, "A man shall not muzzle his ox while it is threshing." This is not how the Hebrew reads, which says, "Don't muzzle the ox while it is threshing." To whom is this law addressed? About whose oxen are we talking? There are three possibilities: (a) the owner of the ox is threshing somebody else's grain;6 (b) the owner of the ox is threshing his own grain; or (c) the owner of the grain is threshing it, but with an ox which does not belong to him, which he is either borrowing or renting. The traditional interpretation, with its focus on the ox, does not provide answers for a number of questions that arise. In the first case, why would the owner of the ox muzzle his ox if he were threshing somebody else's grain? If the ox eats of the grain, he is not the one who would lose out economically, and furthermore, why should he muzzle the ox, thus preventing it from eating while it is doing strenuous work? In the second case, the owner of the ox who is threshing his own grain would prevent losing any of his threshed grain if he muzzles the ox, but, on the other hand, he would weaken the animal while it is doing heavy work. The economic value of the ox far outweighs the value of the threshed grain that an ox could eat while it is threshing. A weakened animal would be less valuable to the owner. It would not be able to do the same amount of work as an ox that is well fed. Economically, it would not make sense if the owner of the ox muzzled his own ox while it is doing hard labor. This leaves us with the third case, the owner of the grain is threshing his grain with an ox that is not his own. We will discuss this case further below.7

If this law is an example of how God is concerned about how people treat animals, then the law is unique in its humanitarian design. Nowhere else do we find a law where the primary focus is an express concern for an animal.8 This is not to say that God has no concern for animals. A few NT passages seem to hint at God's care for animals.9 In addition, this is not to say that people mistreated their animals. On the contrary, mistreatment of one's own animal led to a diminished value of the animal, and thus an economic loss for the owner, and mistreatment of someone else's animal was punishable in the ancient Law codes.10 It was a foolish, uneconomical thing to do.

Furthermore, the traditional explanation does not provide us with a clear answer as to why this law is placed here in the text of Deuteronomy. It seems out of place in relation to the surrounding laws. Various commentators have noticed this: