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

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

So while the text has a literal fulfillment, there is also a fulfillment that does not follow normal exegetical rules, but must be allowed since the apostle is guided by the Spirit to a greater sense of fulfillment.

b. Allegory. The verse, while being literally true and fulfilled, also has a deeper meaning. In general, this view would hold that the Law "as a whole, has a spiritual, Christian meaning underlying the more immediate application of its provisions."35 According to Robertson and Plummer, "Jewish interpreters sometimes abandoned the literal meaning of Scripture and turned it entirely into allegory."36 Conzelmann argues that Deut 25:4 does state a command concerning oxen and not man, but here Paul is using a Jewish Hellenistic principle, "that God's concern is with higher things, that accordingly the detailed prescriptions of the law are to be allegorically expounded."37 Of course, not all scholars who hold that Paul used an allegorical interpretation would extend this method to the whole Law and claim that the whole Law has a Christian meaning.

c. Figurative meaning. The argumentation is very close to the allegorical interpretation. Leon Morris even wonders if Deut 25:4 was not meant "figuratively from the very first."38 Grosheide argues that since the context of the passage is concerned with human relations, it should not be considered impossible that "Paul's application of these words to human relations is not at variance with their original meaning, which is the same as saying that Deut 25:4 refers to human beings in a figurative sense."39 Here we are not just talking about a different application, but have really moved into the arena of allegorical interpretation.

d. Primary application. This interpretation would hold that the primary application lies with humans and not with oxen. F. Godet states that the command was given by God "to cultivate in the hearts of His people feelings of justice and equity."40 Arguing from the context where the moral object is also seen in the corresponding context of this law: returning a poor man's pledge at sunset (Deut 24:10-13), to pay the poor laborer on the same day in which he contributed his labor (24:14-15), not putting a son to death for the crime of the father (24:16-18). . . ."41 Godet concludes:

Does not this whole context show clearly enough what was the object of the prohibition quoted here? It was not from solicitude for oxen that God made this prohibition; there were other ways of providing for the nourishment of these animals. By calling on the Israelites to exercise gentleness and gratitude, even toward a poor animal, it is clear that God desired to inculcate on them, with stronger reason, the same way of acting towards the human workmen whose help they engaged in their labour. It was the duties of moral beings to one another, that God wished to impress by this precept.42

Godet argues that if the authorial intent by Moses was to instill gentleness, gratitude, and justice in a man's dealing with the oxen, then how much more so if the object is man, and how much more so if the object is the Christian minister.43 Walter Kaiser, agreeing with Godet, states: "Thus it was not so much for animals as it was for men that God had spoken, but both were definitely involved in God's directive."44