Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
9. Doth God take care for oxen? ] Luther and Estius are here fully of one mind against those who suppose the Apostle to mean that God does not care for oxen. “God cares for all,” says the former, and the latter gives proofs of this care from Holy Writ, for example, Psa 36:6; Psa 147:9. But the precepts of the law were illustrations of general principles which extended far beyond the special precepts contained in it. Such a precept was that in Exo 23:19, ‘Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk,’ cf. Exo 34:26; Deu 14:21, which had in view the general principle of the cultivation of a spirit of humanity. As an instance of the superior humanity of the Jewish law, Dean Stanley mentions the fact that “the Egyptians had an inscription, still extant, to this effect,” and that in Greece there was a proverb, “the ox on the heap of corn,” to describe a man in the midst of plenty which he could not enjoy. In this and many other instances we have to bear in mind that ‘the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.’ St Paul applies this passage from the Old Testament in an exactly similar manner in 1Ti 5:18. It occurs in Deu 25:4.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For it is written – Deu 25:4.
In the law of Moses – See the note at Luk 24:44.
Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth … – To muzzle means, to bind the mouth; to fasten the mouth to prevent eating or biting – Webster. This was done either by passing straps around the mouth, or by placing, as is now sometimes done, a small basket over the mouth, fastened by straps to the horns of the animal, so as to prevent its eating, but not to impede its breathing freely. This was an instance of the humanity of the laws of Moses. The idea is, that the ox should not be prevented from eating when it was in the midst of food; and that as it labored for its owner, it was entitled to support; and there was a propriety that it should be permitted to partake of the grain which it was threshing.
That treadeth … – This was one of the common modes of threshing in the east, as it is with us; see the note and illustration on Mat 3:12.
The corn – The grain, of any kind; wheat, rye, barley, etc. Maize, to which we apply the word corn, was then unknown; see the note at Mat 12:1.
Doth God take care for oxen? – Doth God take care for oxen only? Or is not this rather a principle which shows Gods care for all that labor, and the humanity and equity of his laws? And if he is so solicitous about the welfare of brutes as to frame an express law in their behalf, is it not to be presumed that the same principle of humanity and equity will run through all his dealings and requirements? The apostle does not mean to deny that God does take care for oxen, for the very law was proof that he did; but he means to ask whether it is to be supposed that God would regard the comfort of oxen and not of people also? Whether we are not to suppose that the same principle would apply also to those who labor in the service of God? He uses this passage, therefore, not as originally having reference to people, or to ministers of the gospel, which cannot be; but as establishing a general principle in regard to the equity and humanity of the divine laws; and as thus showing that the spirit of the law of God would lead to the conclusion that God intended that the laborer everywhere should have a competent support.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 9. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox] See this largely explained in Clarke’s note on “De 25:4“.
Doth God take care for oxen?] This question is to be understood thus: Is it likely that God should be solicitous for the comfort of oxen, and be regardless of the welfare of man? In this Divine precept the kindness and providential care of God are very forcibly pointed out. He takes care of oxen; he wills them all that happiness of which their nature is susceptible; and can we suppose that he is unwilling that the human soul shall have that happiness which is suited to its spiritual and eternal nature? He could not reprobate an ox, because the Lord careth for oxen; and surely he cannot reprobate a man. It may be said the man has sinned but the ox cannot. I answer: The decree of reprobation is supposed to be from all eternity; and certainly a man can no more sin before he exists, than an ox can when he exists.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Art being not so improved formerly as now, nor in all places as in some places; they were wont anciently, both in the land of Judea, and since in Greece, and (as is said) at this day in some places of France, to tread out their corn by the feet of oxen: and by the law of Moses, Deu 25:4, it should seem that some too covetous persons would muzzle the mouths of their oxen, that while they trod out the corn, they might eat none of it; which God, looking upon as an act of cruelty or unmercifulness, forbade his ancient people the Jews. Now, saith the apostle:
Doth God take care for oxen? That is, more for oxen than for ministers or men? For God doth take care for oxen, he preserveth both man and beast; he takes care, as our Saviour elsewhere teacheth us, for the sparrows, for the fowls of the air, for the grass of the field, and therefore for oxen, which are a degree of creatures more noble: but by the same reason we must conclude, that he taketh a greater care for men, especially such as he employeth in his more immediate service.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. ox . . . treadeth . . . corn(De 25:4). In the East to thepresent day they do not after reaping carry the sheaves home to barnsas we do, but take them to an area under the open air to be threshedby the oxen treading them with their feet, or else drawing athreshing instrument over them (compare Mic4:13).
Doth God . . . care foroxen?rather, “Is it for the oxen that God careth?”Is the animal the ultimate object for whose sake this law was given?No. God does care for the lower animal (Psa 36:6;Mat 10:29), but it is with theultimate aim of the welfare of man, the head of animalcreation. In the humane consideration shown for the lower animal, weare to learn that still more ought it to be exercised in the case ofman, the ultimate object of the law; and that the human (spiritual aswell as temporal) laborer is worthy of his hire.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For it is written in the law of Moses,…. De 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. The manner of threshing, or beating out the corn among the Jews, was not the same with ours; it was not done by the flail, at least not always, but by the means of oxen; and by these not only treading upon it to and fro, but drawing a wooden instrument after them, the bottom of which was stuck with iron teeth, and the top of it filled with stones, to press it down close by the weight thereof; the sheaves put in proper form, the oxen were led to and fro upon them, drawing this threshing instrument after them, by which means the grain was separated from the husk and ear g; see Isa 41:15 The learned Beckius h has given us a figure of this instrument, and the manner of using it: now according to this law, whilst the ox was thus employed, its mouth was not to be muzzled, but it might freely eat of the corn it trod upon, excepting, the Jews say i, what was dedicated to sacred uses. They give many rules relating to this law, and particularly observe, that it is to be extended to all sorts of creatures, as well as the ox, and to all sorts of business k; and that what is said of the ox, is much more to be observed with respect to men l; and which agrees with the apostle’s reasoning here:
doth God take care for oxen? yes, he does, and for creatures of less importance than they, even the fowls of the air, and the most worthless of them, sparrows, two of which are sold for a farthing; but not for them only, nor principally, but chiefly for men.
g Ben Melec. in 2 Sam. xii. 31. & Jarchi in Isa. xli. 1, 5. h Not. in Targum in 1 Chron. xx. 3. p. 210. Vid. Surenhusii Biblos Kattallages, p. 535. i Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Meilah, c. sect. 6. & Trumot, c. 9. sect. 3. k Jarchi in loc. Maimon. Hilch. Shecirot, c. 13. sect. 1, 2, 3. Moses Kotsensis Mitzot Tora, pr. neg. 184. & affirm. 91. l T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 88. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn ( ). Quotation from De 25:4. Prohibition by and the volitive future indicative. , to muzzle (from , a muzzle for dogs and oxen), appears first in Aristophanes (Clouds, 592) and not again till LXX and N.T., though in the papyri also. Evidently a vernacular word, perhaps a slang word. See metaphorical use in Matt 22:12; Matt 22:34. is present active participle of the old verb , occurs in the N.T. only here (and verse 10) and 1Ti 5:18 where it is also quoted. It is probably derived from or , a threshing-floor, or the disc of a shield or of the sun and moon. The Egyptians according to the monuments, used oxen to thresh out the grain, sometimes donkeys, by pulling a drag over the grain. The same process may be found today in Andalusia, Italy, Palestine. A hieroglyphic inscription at Eileithyas reads:
“Thresh ye yourselves, O oxen, Measures of grain for yourselves, Measures of grain for your masters.”
Note expects the negative answer, impersonal verb with dative and genitive cases (, God, , oxen).
Altogether (). But here probably with the notion of doubtless or assuredly. The editors differ in the verse divisions here. The Canterbury Version puts both these questions in verse 10, the American Standard the first in verse 9, the second in verse 10.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Muzzle [] . See on Mt 22:12, 34; Mr 4:39. Some texts read khmwseiv a muzzle, from khmov a muzzle See Deu 25:4.
Ox – treadeth. The custom of driving the oxen over the corn strewed on the ground or on a paved area, was an Egyptian one. In later times the Jews used threshing instruments, dragged by the beasts through the grain Herodotus says that pigs were employed for this purpose in Egypt, but the monuments always represent oxen, or, more rarely, asses. In Andalusia the process may still be seen, the animals pulling the drag in a circle through the heap of grain; and in Italy, the method of treading out by horses was in use up to a comparatively recent date. 101 The verb ajloaw to tread, occurring only here, ver. 10, and 1Ti 5:18, is etymologically related to alwn halon, threshing – floor (see on Mt 3:12), which also means the disk of the sun or moon, or a halo, thus implying the circular shape of the floor. Dr. Thomson says : “The command of Moses not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn is literally obeyed to this day by most farmers, and you often see the oxen eating from the floor as they go round. There are niggardly peasants, however, who do muzzle the ox” (” The Land and the Book “). This custom was in strong contrast with that of Gentile farmers, who treated their laboring animals cruelly, sometimes employing inhuman methods to prevent them from eating while threshing. All students of the Egyptian monuments are familiar with the hieroglyphic inscription in a tomb at Eileithyas, one of the oldest written poems extant :
” Thresh ye for yourselves, Thresh ye for yourselves, Thresh ye for yourselves, O oxen.
Measures of grain for yourselves, Measures of grain for your masters. ”
Doth God take care for oxen ? The A. V. misses the true point of the expression. Paul, of course, assumes that God cares for the brute creation; but he means that this precept of Moses was not primarily for the oxen ‘s sake but for man’s sake. He is emphasizing the typical and spiritual meaning of the command. Render, as Rev., Is it for the oxen that God careth? 102
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) For it is written in the Law of Moses.” (en gar to mouseos nomo gegraptai) “For in the Law of Moses it has been written.” The Law of Moses is thus appealed to as an ancient antecedent precedent moral, ethical, and religious premise of truth.
2) Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox (ou kemoseis Boun) “Thou shalt not muzzle or cover the mouth of an ox.” If man worked the ox in threshing grain he should feed the ox so well that he would not stop to eat of the grain he was treading.
3) That treadeth out the corn.” (aloanta) “(The ox when) it treadeth the threshing floor.” If one did not feed the ox before working him, then the law of the Lord protected the ox by forbidding his master to muzzle him while threshing.
4) Doth God take care for oxen? (me ton boon melei to theo;) “Does not the ox matter to God?” Or does it not matter to God how a man acts toward his oxen? Rhetorically, and legally, it is affirmed that he does. This was the import of the Law as expressed, Deu 25:4 1Ti 5:18. Though the Law of Moses is abolished as a system of religious worship and guide, the moral and ethical truths set forth in the law were and are eternal. Thus Paul drew an illustration from it as a standard for Christian conduct. Rom 13:8; 1Co 10:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(9) The ox that treadeth out the corn.Better, the ox while treading out the corn. In this verse the question of the previous one is answered. The Law does say the same: For it is written in the Law of Moses, etc. The pointed and emphatic mention of the Law of Moses would give the words great weight with Jewish opponents. On a space of hard ground called a threshing-floor the oxen were driven to and fro over the corn collected there, and thus the separation of the grain from the husk was accomplished.
Doth God take care for oxen?We must not take these and the following words as a denial of the divine regard for the brute creation, which runs through the Mosaic law and is exemplified in Jon. 4:11, but as an expression of the Apostles belief as to the ultimate and highest object of Gods love. The good which such a provision as the Law achieved for the oxen was nothing compared to the good which it accomplished for man. God did not do this simply as a provision for the ox, but to teach us men humanityto teach us that it is a divine principle that the labourer should have his reward.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
9. Doth God take care for oxen This passage we have lately seen quoted in a beautiful sermon on tenderness to brutes (by a “liberal” Christian preacher) as inhuman language. He understands the apostle as affirming, contrary to many beautiful texts of sympathy for the lower creatures, that God has no care for brutes! Darwinism, while it confessedly degrades man, claims to elevate the lower animals and to prompt to mercy toward them a happy result of error, if real. Sad, if Paul’s Christianity were in this below its level!
Alford thus interprets it: “We must not, as ordinarily, supply , only, for oxen, and thus rationalize the sentence. The question imports: ‘In giving this command, are the oxen, or those for whom the law was given, its objects?’ And to such a question there can be but one answer. Every duty of humanity has its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in that system of which man is the head, and, therefore man’s welfare. The good done to man’s immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes.” Our own view is, however, that the question is an argument a fortiori: Cares God for oxen in this law? Much more cares he for men, and for ministers who work like oxen. If the law of compensation includes even the honest labouring cattle, it surely includes us apostles.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 9:9. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox See on Deu 25:4 and Raphelius on the place.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 9:9 . ] introduces the answer which is to prove that the does not hold good.
. ] carries a certain solemnity, as coming after in ver 8. The quotation is from Deu 25:4 , given exactly according to the LXX., where it is forbidden to keep the ox that drew the thrashing machine from eating by a muzzle ( , ), which used to be done among heathen nations (Varro, i. 25; Cato, de re rust. 54). See Michaelis, Mos. R. III. 130. The motive of the prohibition, in accordance with that spirit of tenderness towards the lower creation which breathes throughout the whole law (see Ewald, Alterth. p. 222), was humanity to the helpful animals. See Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21; Philo, de Carit. p. 711 F. The same citation is made in 1Ti 5:18 . Comp also Constitt. Ap. ii. 25. 3.
] = , which B* D* F G, Tisch. actually read, and which we should accept as genuine, since the former might easily creep into the text from the LXX. Regarding , to muzzle , comp Xen. de re eq. v. 3; Poll. i. 202. As to the future with the force of an imperative ( thou wilt that I expect of thee not muzzle an ox in the thrashing-floor ), see on Mat 1:21 .
Beginning with , there follows now the interpretation of this law, given in the form of a twofold question which runs on to , first of all, negatively: God does not surely concern Himself about oxen ? To modify this negation by an “ only ” (so Erasmus and many others, among whom is Rckert: “for nothing further than”) is unwarrantable, although even Tholuck’s view in its latest form still amounts to this ( das A. T. im N. T. , Exo 6 , p. 40). What Paul means is, that this class of creatures, the oxen, are not the objects of the divine solicitude in that provision of the law; what expresses the care to be taken for the oxen, is said not for their sakes, but . , . , Philo, de Sacrif. p. 251. Manifestly in this way the apostle sets aside [1425] the actual historical sense of that prohibition (Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 21) in behalf of an allegorical sense, [1426] which, from the standpoint of a purely historic interpretation, is nothing but an application made “a minori ad majus” (comp Bava Mezia , f. 88). But this need not surprise us, considering the freedom used in the typico-allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, which regarded such an application as the reference of the utterance in question designed by God, and which from this standpoint did not take the historical sense into account along with the other at all. The interpreter, accordingly, who proceeds upon this method with regard to any particular passage does not call in question its historical meaning as such, considered in itself , but only (as was self-evident to his readers) as regards the higher typical destination of the words, inasmuch as he goes to work not as a historical, but as a typico-allegorical expositor. It is in the typical destination of the law in general (Col 2:17 ), whereby it pointed men above and beyond itself, that such a mode of procedure finds its justification , and on this ground it has both its freedom , according as each special case may require, and at the same time its ethical limit , in the necessity of being in harmony with what befitted God.
[1425] Not simply generalizes (Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 834 f.; comp. Neander), nor “ subordinates the one to the other ” (Osiander), nor the like, which run counter to the plain meaning of the words. Luther’s gloss, too, goes astray with a naive simplicity of its own: “God cares for all things; but He does not care that anything should be written for oxen, seeing that they cannot read .”
[1426] Comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 296.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Ver. 9. Doth God take care for oxen? ] He doth, doubtless, Joh 4:11 ; he preserveth man and beast; he heareth the young ravens that cry to him only by implication. Doth he not then much more take care for men, for ministers? The Hebrews have a proverb, Bos debet edere ex tritura sua, The ox should eat of the grain he treadeth out. But today, by slight or might, they so muzzle the poor labouring ox that they make an ass of him, saith one. In many places they allow him nothing but straw, for treading out the grain; and so much straw as themselves please, saith another. Do they not now go about to deal by Christ’s faithfulest servants, as those Grecians did, that put an engine about their servants’ neck (called ) which reached down to their hands, that they might not so much as lick of the meal, when they were sifting it (Dr Stoughton.) It was long since complained about, that many dealt by their ministers as carriers do by their horses, they laid heavy burdens upon them, and then hung bells about their necks: hard work and good words they shall have; but easy commons and slight wages; as if they were of the chameleon kind, and could live by air, &c. The statute of mortmain a provided that men should give no more to the Church, but now tempera mutantur. Let it control be changed.
a The figurative use is often based on the notion that the ‘dead hand’ means the posthumous control exercised by the testator over the uses to which the property is to be applied. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
9 .] (It does say them): for in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not (on the fut. with an imperative meaning, ‘Thou shalt not,’ i.e. ‘This I expect of thee, that thou wilt not,’ common to all civilized languages, see Winer, edn. 6, 43. 5. c; Khner, 446. 2) muzzle (the reading probably came in from the similar place, 1Ti 5:18 , and LXX. The verb occurs, with its substantive , in Xen. de re equestri, 1Co 9:3 , , , ) an ox while treading out the corn (in the sense = ‘the ox that treadeth out:’ but strictly that would require . ) “ dicuntur boves, quum grana ex aristis exterunt pedibus, qui mos Orientis, sed et Grci, ut ex Theophrasto et aliis discimus. Hic triturandi mos in Asia hodieque retinetur. Solent enim illarum regionum incol, postquam demess fruges sunt, non domum eas ex agris, more nostro, granis nondum excussis, in horrea convellere: sed in aream quandam sub dio comportare: deinde, sparsis in aream manipulis frugum, boves et bubalos immittunt, qui vel pedibus calcantes (see Mic 4:13 ), vel curruum quoddam genus trahentes super frumenta, ex aristis eliciunt grana.” Rosenmller. Is it for OXEN (generic) that God is taking care ? We must not, as ordinarily, supply , only for oxen, and thus rationalize the sentence: the question imports, ‘In giving this command, are the oxen , or those for whom the law was given , its objects?’ And to such a question there can be but one answer. Every duty of humanity has for its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in that system of which MAN is the head : and therefore man’s welfare. The good done to man’s immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice, infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes. So Philo (de victimas offerentibus, 1, vol. ii. p. 251) rightly explains the spirit of the law: , . , , , .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
is = has been.
Moses. Occurs twice in this Epistle, here and 1Co 10:2. Compare Mat 8:4.
muzzle. Greek. phimoo. See Luk 4:38 (hold . . . peace).
treadeth out the corn = thresheth. Greek. aloao. Only here, 1Co 9:10 and 1Ti 5:18, where the same quotation from Deu 25:4 is found.
Doth, &c. The question begins with me, as in 1Co 9:8, nnd expects the answer “No”. But He does care. See Job 38:41. Mat 6:26; Mat 10:29. So there is an Ellipsis of the word “only” after “oxen”. Compare 1Co 9:8.
God. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
9.] (It does say them): for in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not (on the fut. with an imperative meaning, Thou shalt not, i.e. This I expect of thee, that thou wilt not, common to all civilized languages, see Winer, edn. 6, 43. 5. c; Khner, 446. 2) muzzle (the reading probably came in from the similar place, 1Ti 5:18, and LXX. The verb occurs, with its substantive , in Xen. de re equestri, 1Co 9:3, , , ) an ox while treading out the corn (in the sense = the ox that treadeth out: but strictly that would require . )- dicuntur boves, quum grana ex aristis exterunt pedibus, qui mos Orientis, sed et Grci, ut ex Theophrasto et aliis discimus. Hic triturandi mos in Asia hodieque retinetur. Solent enim illarum regionum incol, postquam demess fruges sunt, non domum eas ex agris, more nostro, granis nondum excussis, in horrea convellere: sed in aream quandam sub dio comportare: deinde, sparsis in aream manipulis frugum, boves et bubalos immittunt, qui vel pedibus calcantes (see Mic 4:13), vel curruum quoddam genus trahentes super frumenta, ex aristis eliciunt grana. Rosenmller. Is it for OXEN (generic) that God is taking care? We must not, as ordinarily, supply , only for oxen, and thus rationalize the sentence: the question imports, In giving this command, are the oxen, or those for whom the law was given, its objects? And to such a question there can be but one answer. Every duty of humanity has for its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in that system of which MAN is the head: and therefore mans welfare. The good done to mans immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice, infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes. So Philo (de victimas offerentibus, 1, vol. ii. p. 251) rightly explains the spirit of the law: , . , , , .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 9:9. ) So the LXX., Deu 25:4.-, threshing) Horses in the present day are employed in threshing corn in some parts of Germany.- , does God care for oxen) It is not at all denied, that God cares for oxen, since the man, who would have muzzled the ox, threshing the corn, would have committed a sin against the law. But the conclusion proceeds from the less to the greater. [If God cares for mere oxen, much more for men]. This is a specimen of the right mode of handling the Mosaic laws, enacted regarding animals.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 9:9
1Co 9:9
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.-The ox when treading out the grain was allowed to eat what he needed while so doing.
Is it for the oxen that God careth,-[Certainly God cares for the ox. He had commanded the Israelites that when the harvest came, the ox, while treading out the corn which it had contributed to produce by the painful labor of plowing, should not be muzzled, and thereby prevented from enjoying, conjointly with man, the fruit of its toil. Gods object in acting thus was evidently to cultivate in the hearts of his people feelings of justice and equity. This moral object appears not only from the prohibition itself, but also from all the other injunctions which accompany it-pay to the poor laborer his wages on the same evening; not to put the child to death with the guilty father; always to leave, when gathering the harvest, a gleaning for widows and strangers; not to subject the criminal to more than forty stripes. (Deu 24:10 to Deu 25:4). This whole context shows clearly enough what the object of the prohibition was. It was not from solicitude for the ox that God made this prohibition; there were other ways for providing for his nourishment. By calling on the Israelites to exercise gentleness and gratitude, even to a poor animal, it is clear that God desired to impress on them, with stronger reason, the same way of acting toward the human workmen whose help they engaged in their labor. It was the duties of moral beings to one another that God wished to impress by this precept.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Thou: Deu 25:4, 1Ti 5:18
Doth: Num 22:28-35, Deu 5:14, Psa 104:27, Psa 145:15, Psa 145:16, Psa 147:8, Psa 147:9, Jon 4:11, Mat 6:26-30, Luk 12:24-28
Reciprocal: 1Ki 7:25 – General 2Ch 4:3 – And under 2Ch 31:4 – that they might Pro 14:4 – but Isa 28:28 – Bread Isa 30:24 – oxen Isa 32:20 – the ox Eze 1:10 – the face of an ox Mat 10:31 – General Rom 15:4 – whatsoever Gal 6:6 – General Rev 4:7 – like a calf
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 9:9. For it is written in the law of Hoses (Deu 25:4), Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, etc.a favourite illustration of our apostle, for he recurs to it in 1Ti 5:18; and no wonder; for it is one of the most beautiful proofs of the humane character of the Mosaic law, that in a matter seemingly so insignificant that even a considerate legislator might easily overlook it, provision was made against the injustice of gagging those animals on whose labour they were so dependent, when the very sight and scent of the corn they were threshing out with their feet would excite a constant craving after what was thus denied them.
Is it for the oxen that God careth? Yes, in the first instance (see Job 38:4; Psa 147:9; Mat 6:26).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
For it is written in the law of Moses [Deu 25:4], Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. [Grain in the East has never been threshed by machinery. Though flails are used, it is usually threshed out by oxen. These are driven over it to tramp out the grain, and they sometimes draw a small sled or threshing instrument after them. The law forbade the muzzling of an ox thus employed, and in the East this law is still obeyed.] Is it for the oxen that God careth,
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 9
It is written; in Deuteronomy 25:4. This was the ancient mode of threshing or separating grain from the ear.–Doth God take care for oxen? and not for men?
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for {i} oxen?
(i) Was it God’s proper intention to provide for oxen, when he made this law? For there is not the smallest thing in the world, but that God has a concern for.