4<\/strong>. Against Muzzling the Labouring Ox. Peculiar to D; a clear<\/p>\n The present writer has never seen them muzzled. ‘In all W. Asia it is the universal custom to allow the oxen or other animals thus employed freely to eat of the crop’ (Van Lennep, op. cit.<\/em> 81). ‘I have seen them muzzled, though this is rare’ (Conder, Tent Work<\/em>, etc., 329). ‘Not muzzled as a rule’ (Baldensperger, PEFQ<\/em>, 1907, 20). In 1Co 9:9<\/span> f. Paul in illustrating from this law the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire asks, Is it for oxen that God careth<\/em>? According to D, undoubtedly He does. Paul may be writing playfully; if not it is a remarkable illustration of the effect of the allegorising habit of the later Jewish exegesis.<\/p>\n Compare the marginal references. In other kinds of labor the oxen were usually muzzled. When driven to and fro over the threshing-floor in order to stamp out the grain from the chaff, they were to be allowed to partake of the fruits of their labors.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, c.<\/B><\/I>] In Judea, as well as in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, they make use of beeves to tread out the corn and Dr. Shaw tells us that the people of Barbary continue to tread out their corn after the custom of the East. Instead of beeves they frequently made use of mules and horses, by tying by the neck three or four in like manner together, and whipping them afterwards round about the nedders<\/I>, as they call the treading<\/I> floors, (the Libycae areae Hor<\/I>), where the sheaves lie open and expanded, in the same manner as they are placed and prepared with us for threshing. This indeed is a much quicker way than ours, though less cleanly, for as it is performed in the open air, (Ho 13:3<\/span>), upon any round level plot of ground, daubed over with cow’s dung to prevent as much as possible the earth, sand, or gravel from rising; a great quantity of them all, notwithstanding this precaution, must unavoidably be taken up with the grain, at the same time that the straw, which is their chief and only fodder, is hereby shattered to pieces; a circumstance very pertinently alluded to in 2Kg 13:7<\/span>, where the king of Syria<\/I> is said to have made the Israelites like<\/I> the dust by threshing<\/I>. – Travels, p. 138. While the oxen were at work some muzzled their mouths to hinder them from eating the corn, which Moses here forbids, instructing the people by this symbolical precept to be kind to their servants and labourers, but especially to those who ministered to them in holy things; so St. Paul applies it 1Co 9:9<\/span>, c. 1Ti 5:18<\/span>. Le Clerc considers the injunction as wholly symbolical; and perhaps in this view it was intended to confirm the laws enjoined in the fourteenth and fifteenth verses of the former chapter. See Dodd<\/I> and Shaw<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> In Bengal<\/I>, where the same mode of treading cut the corn is used, some muzzle the ox, and others do not, according to the disposition of the farmer.-Ward<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n As the Gentiles used to do, having divers devices to keep them from eating when they trod out the corn, which they did in those parts and times by oxen, Hos 10:11<\/span>, either immediately by their hoofs, Isa 28:28<\/span>; Mic 4:13<\/span>, or by drawing carts or other instruments over the corn, Isa 25:10<\/span>; 28:27<\/span>; 41:15<\/span>; Amo 1:3<\/span>. Hereby God taught them humanity and kindness, even to their beasts that served them, Pro 12:10<\/span>, and much more to their servants or other men who laboured for them, and especially to their ministers, 1Co 9:9<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 4. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox whenhe treadeth out the corn<\/B>In Judea, as in modern Syria andEgypt, the larger grains were beaten out by the feet of oxen, which,yoked together, day after day trod round the wide open spaces whichform the threshing-floors. The animals were allowed freely to pick upa mouthful, when they chose to do so: a wise as well as humaneregulation, introduced by the law of Moses (compare 1Co 9:9<\/span>;1Ti 5:17<\/span>; 1Ti 5:18<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Thou shall not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn].<\/strong> As oxen are used in ploughing, so likewise in treading or beating out the corn; of the manner of which, [See comments on 1Co 9:9]<\/span>; now while it was thus employed, it might not be restrained by any means from eating the corn as it had an opportunity, either by a muzzle put over its mouth, or other ways. The Gentiles had several ways of restraining their cattle from eating, while they thus made use of them, to which this law is opposed. Maimonides f has collected several or them together, as prohibited by it; as putting a thorn into its mouth, causing a lion to lie down by it, or causing its calf to lie down without, or spreading a skin on the top of the corn, that so it may not eat. Aelianus g relates a very particular way of hindering oxen from eating at such times, used some countries, which was this; that oxen might not eat of the ears of corn, in a floor where they were trod out, they used to besmear their nostrils with cows’ dung, which was so disagreeable to the creature, that it would not taste anything though pressed with famine. This law is not to be limited to the ox only, or to this peculiar work assigned it; but, as Jarchi says, respects any sort of cattle, and whatsoever work that has food in it, none of them being to be restrained from eating while at work: and this law was not made for the creatures only, but for men also; and especially for the sake of ministers of the word; who for their strength, labour, and industry, are compared to oxen, and ought to be comfortably supported and maintained on account of their work; for the illustration and confirmation of which this passage is twice produced,<\/p>\n [See comments on 1Co 9:9]<\/span>;<\/p>\n [See comments on 1Co 9:10]<\/span>;<\/p>\n [See comments on 1Ti 5:17]<\/span>;<\/p>\n [See comments on 1Ti 5:18]<\/span>.<\/p>\n f Hilchot Shecirut, c. 13. sect. 2, 3. g Hist. Animal. l. 4. c. 25.<\/p>\n The command not to put a muzzle upon the ox when threshing, is no doubt proverbial in its nature, and even in the context before us is not intended to apply merely literally to an ox employed in threshing, but to be understood in the general sense in which the Apostle Paul uses it in 1Co 9:9<\/span> and 1Ti 5:18<\/span>, viz., that a labourer was not to be deprived of his wages. As the mode of threshing presupposed here – namely, with oxen yoked together, and driven to and fro over the corn that had been strewn upon the floor, that they might kick out the grains with their hoofs – has been retained to the present day in the East, so has also the custom of leaving the animals employed in threshing without a muzzle (vid., Hoest, Marokos,<\/em> p. 129; Wellst. Arabien,<\/em> i. p. 194; Robinson ,<\/em> Pal.<\/em> ii. pp. 206-7, iii. p. 6), although the Mosaic injunctions are not so strictly observed by the Christians as by the Mohammedans (Robinson, ii. p. 207).<\/p>\n Verse 4:<\/strong><\/p>\n The law mandated humane treatment toward work animals. This was a symbol of a spiritual principle, which Paul explains and applies in 1Ti 5:18<\/span>; and 1Co 9:9-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 4. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox. This passage, indeed, properly belongs to the Supplements of the Commandment, but, since it is a confirmation of the foregoing decree, it seemed fit to connect them; especially because its faithful expositor, Paul, declares, that God had no other design in delivering it than that the laborer should not be defrauded of his just hire, (1Co 9:10<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 for, when he is speaking of the maintenance to be afforded to the ministers of the Gospel, he adduces it. in proof of his case. And, lest any should object that there is a difference between oxen and men, he adds, that God does not care for oxen, but that it was said for the sake of those that labor. Meanwhile, we must bear in mind, that men are so instructed in equity, that they are bound to exercise it even towards the brute animals; for well does Solomon magnify the injustice, whereby our neighbor is injured, by the comparison; “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.” (Pro 12:10<\/span>.) The sum is, that we should freely and voluntarily pay what is right, and that every one should be strict with himself as to the performance of his duty; for, if we are bound to supply subsistence to brute animals, much less must we wait for men to be importunate with us, in order that they may obtain their due. <\/p>\n (17) Ox TO WORK UNMUZZLED (Deu. 25:4<\/span>)<\/p>\n 4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the grain.<\/p>\n THOUGHT QUESTIONS 25:4<\/p>\n 435.<\/p>\n Read 1Co. 9:9-10<\/span> and 1Ti. 5:17-18<\/span> for a N. T. application of this principle. To whom does it refer in these two passages?<\/p>\n 436.<\/p>\n Why not muzzle the ox and feed him later?<\/p>\n 437.<\/p>\n How should we react to a comparison with an ox?<\/p>\n AMPLIFIED TRANSLATIONS Deu. 25:4<\/span><\/p>\n You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain. [1Co. 9:9-10<\/span>; 1Ti. 5:17-18<\/span>.]<\/p>\n COMMENT 25:4<\/p>\n Paul uses the principle involved in this verse as applying to those who devote their lives to laboring in the work of Christ1Co. 9:9-10<\/span>! 1Ti. 5:17-18<\/span>. If he is concerned about a brute beast enough to provide for his sustenance, is he not also desirous that those men who have devoted their lives to His harvest (i.e. his service) also be sustained? And as the oxen partook of the very grain in which he worked, so it is right that Gods laborers be sustained by the very persons with whom they work. A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast (Pro. 12:10<\/span>)How much more should he regard the life of his fellow-man, made in the image of God, and devoted wholly to his service.[43]<\/p>\n [43] If I may be allowed to draw out this parallel a bit, it is well to note that no eating privileges are mentioned here for lazy or non-working oxen! The laborer is worthy of his hire and If any will not work, neither let him eat (2Th. 3:10<\/span>). It is right and proper that working elders, ministers, or others set aside for the service of Christ be supported; it is also right and proper that they give themselves fully to their tasks (1Ti. 4:15-16<\/span>). The Church of our Lord has no room for mercenaries, hirelings or leeches!<\/p>\n 4<\/strong>. <\/strong> Thou shalt not muzzle the ox <\/strong> The ancient mode of threshing with oxen yoked together and driven over the sheaves of grain is still in use in the East. Those who muzzle the ox are looked upon as niggardly peasants.<\/p>\n Regulations Concerning Fair Treatment To Another Party ( Deu 25:4-16<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n The principle in these regulations is that of fair and just treatment towards other parties. The ox who treads out the grain must be treated fairly and be given seed (grain) (Deu 25:4<\/span>), a deceased brother must be treated fairly and be given seed (children) (Deu 25:5-10<\/span>), a combatant must be treated fairly and his seed producing capability not be attacked (Deu 25:11-12<\/span>), a purchaser must be treated fairly when he buys seed (grain) (Deu 25:13-16<\/span>). (The play on the word ‘seed’ is mine, but the play on ideas is the writer’s). <\/p>\n Analysis using the words of Moses. <\/p>\n You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain (Deu 25:4<\/span>). <\/p>\n a <\/strong> If brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married without to a stranger, her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her (Deu 25:5<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And it shall be, that the firstborn that she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel (Deu 25:6<\/span>). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> And if the man does not like to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me” (Deu 25:7<\/span>). <\/p>\n d <\/strong> Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stand, and say, ‘I do not like to take her,” then shall his brother’s wife come to him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face (Deu 25:8<\/span>). <\/p>\n d <\/strong> And she shall answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house” (Deu 25:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> And his name shall be called in Israel, “The house of him who has his shoe loosed” (Deu 25:10<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> When men strive together one with a brother, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who smites him, and puts forth her hand, and takes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity (Deu 25:11-12<\/span>). <\/p>\n a <\/strong> You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a great and a small. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a great and a small. Perfect and just weight shall you have; a perfect and just measure shall you have; that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you. For all who do such things, even all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God’ (Deu 25:13-16<\/span>) <\/p>\n Note that in ‘a’ we have cases of fair dealing. The ox treads the grain and his owner must therefore give him the right to eat of it. He is entitled to fair measure. In the same way in the parallel the seller must give to the purchaser fair measure when weighing out the goods. The purchaser has the right to eat of what is justly his. In ‘b’ a brother who lives in the same household must go in to the wife of his deceased brother, if he has no son, in order to produce seed for his deceased brother. The family name must be maintained, and otherwise he is rendering his deceased brother childless. In the parallel a woman who seeks to render a man childless by squeezing his private parts must be severely punished. The aim of both is to prevent childlessness. <\/p>\n In the central section c d d c each section has within it a statement which balances with another statement. In ‘c’ the man refuses to produce seed for his brother the wife of the deceased brother declares “my husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me” and in the parallel the brother is shamed because his name shall be called in Israel, “The house of him who has his shoe loosed”. In ‘d’ the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stand, and say, ‘I do not like to take her,” then his brother’s wife will come to him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face and in the parallel, she will answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house”. <\/p>\n The Working Ox Not To Be Muzzled ( Deu 25:4<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n At first sight this may appear totally out of place. But it actually follows the ideas of the previous two regulations. In the first case out of humanity gleanings were to be left for the weak and helpless, so should grain be available to the oxen who trod out the grain. Secondly the man found guilty was beaten with a rod in order to correct him, and the oxen would be hit with a rod to drive them to tread down the grain. This would be a common sight. It may even be suggesting that the ox must be allowed to partake of the equivalent of the gleanings (Deu 24:19<\/span>) lest it had to be beaten to make it perform its function (Deu 25:2-3<\/span>). Did Moses also have in mind the Israelite who was beaten in order to restore him to a productive life, with the thought that he should not be made unproductive by too severe treatment? The human ‘ox’ must not be muzzled. <\/p>\n This verse also fits in with what follows, introducing the idea of treating others fairly in the normal course of life. <\/p>\n Deu 25:4<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain.’ <\/p>\n Once the grain had been gathered (Deu 24:19<\/span>) it would be threshed by using an ox to tread it down to separate the grain from the chaff with its hooves, after which it would be tossed up into the prevailing wind, which came regularly at that time of year, to complete the separation. The grain would fall to the ground, and the lighter chaff would be blown away. <\/p>\n Sometimes a yoke of oxen would pull a threshing sledge round and round, which was a large block of wood with sharp stones fitted underneath, on which the driver would stand, which would do a better job of separation, and would grind the stubble to chaff. <\/p>\n In either case the ox was not to be muzzled. Just as the poor could gather the gleanings (Deu 24:19<\/span>), so was the ox to be allowed his fodder. (Just as it also benefited from the seventh day Sabbath – Deu 5:14<\/span>). Not only would it work more contentedly and possibly save it from having to be beaten (was there a contrast in Moses’ mind with the man who had to be beaten?), but it was also not felt to be seemly to make an ox work on its natural food and not be able to eat of it. The labourer was worthy of its hire. Just as certain unlike things should be kept apart (Deu 22:9-11<\/span>), so others which were compatible should not unreasonably be kept apart. <\/p>\n It may well be that this was already a proverb and had wider implications, signifying the duty of giving due reward and appreciation for services rendered. Paul used this example to illustrate the need for Christians to give to assist the work of the ministry (1Co 9:9<\/span>; 1Ti 5:18<\/span>). <\/p>\n Husband’s Brother’s (Levirate) Marriage ( Deu 25:5-10<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n The purpose of this regulation was in order to ensure that a man who died childless had a son who could inherit his property, and, more importantly, would continue his name. To an Israelite these were matters of supreme importance. It was to be achieved by his brother acting as his proxy and discreetly having sexual relations with his deceased brother’s wife so as to implant within her the family seed, who would then be looked on as his deceased brother’s, and inherit his name and his land. This practise was widespread in the ancient world. <\/p>\n One example of this occurs in Gen 38:1-30<\/span>, where there was a clear unwillingness to carry it through, but where Tamar managed by manoeuvring to achieve her end. <\/p>\n Deu 25:5<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> If brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married without to a stranger, her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.’ <\/p>\n We should note the condition. The brothers must be ‘dwelling together’ (compare Psa 133:1<\/span>). That meant that they must be living on the same ‘estate’, although not necessarily in the same house, with their lands jointly worked as a family concern. They would have decided to keep the family estates together rather than split them up when they inherited. It therefore suggested a close family bond. Family feeling and family unity was especially strong among the ancients. This condition indicated that the aim to keep the estates together and the maintenance of the deceased brother’s name were central to the whole idea. <\/p>\n The idea then was that the surviving brother should take his brother’s wife as one of his own wives in order to keep things in the family, although it may well be that she had a more independent status and was not necessarily seen as a fully functioning wife. Any land that she had brought with her would then remain in the family and not go to ‘strangers’, as would any wealth that had passed to her. She should not need to look for an outsider to marry, but would remain as a part of the family circle. And the brother would have discreet sexual relations with her in order to ‘perform the duty of a husband’s brother’ towards her, so as to raise up a son for his brother. This was the only case where a woman having sexual relations with her husband’s brother was allowed. Lev 18:16<\/span>; Lev 20:21<\/span> refer either to where the brother was still living or to cases where the marriage was for the wrong reasons. Intention was everything, and would be known to Yahweh. There was nothing sordid or behind hand about it. The aim was totally meritorious, to preserve the brother’s name. <\/p>\n Num 27:8-11<\/span> may suggest that it may not have been seen as necessary when there were daughters who could inherit, although as that would not ensure the preservation of the deceased husband’s name, it was probably seen as second best. That case may have in mind circumstances where a Levirate marriage was not possible through a failure to be able to meet the conditions in one way or another (through, for example, the refusal mentioned in Deu 25:7<\/span>, or because the family was no longer a close family unit, or because the wife was also dead). But once they had inherited their father’s land the women were not then to marry outside the tribe, taking the land with them (see Num 36:1-9<\/span>). This does bring out how important it was seen to be at that time that land remained within the family and within the tribe. And that the Levirate marriage would ensure. <\/p>\n Deu 25:6<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And it shall be, that the firstborn that she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.’ <\/p>\n Any firstborn son would then be looked on as the deceased brother’s. He would succeed to his name and to his inheritance, so that his name might not be blotted out of Israel, and so that the dead brother might live on in his son. Before he died he might well have pleaded with his brother to do this for him. The blotting out of the name was seen as an appalling catastrophe. It was ceasing to be. <\/p>\n Deu 25:7<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And if the man does not like to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.” <\/p>\n It was always open to the brother to refuse, although that was looked on with disapproval. The widow could then go to the city elders as they sat and conferred in the gate area, and inform them that the brother refused to maintain his deceased brother’s name in Israel by bearing children in his name, that he refused to perform ‘the duty of a husband’s brother’. <\/p>\n It should be noted that while in this case it is the widow taking the initiative, that might not always be the case. Sometimes it would be the family who urged it on the widow. We only hear of the cases where difficulties arose. But it was certainly to the widow’s advantage, for then her son would inherit his father’s land and she would, along with him, have a good level of independence. Not that all widows became totally dependent on others. Quite apart from the issue of the land, she might have inherited wealth from her husband, and even have had lands of her own (Num 27:8-11<\/span>). Note that the land did not immediately pass into someone else’s possession. Time was clearly allowed for her to achieve a Levirate marriage and have a son. <\/p>\n Deu 25:8-9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stand, and say, ‘I do not like to take her,” then shall his brother’s wife come to him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and she shall answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.” ’ <\/p>\n The elders of the city were then to add their weight behind the widow’s plea. This was something to be favoured by all. But if the brother still declared his intention of not fulfilling the responsibility it was accepted, but it was made quite clear to the brother that his failure to honour his brother was not appreciated. <\/p>\n His brother’s wife was to come to him in the presence of the elders, loose and take of one of his sandals, and spit in his face, saying ‘so shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house’. <\/p>\n The loosing of the sandal may have indicated that he could be no longer seen as having a comfortable path ahead. His future prospects had been damaged. Or it may have been indicating that he had now lost his authority over anything that she possessed, which he would otherwise have benefited by. She was now free from his authority, and was no longer ‘under his feet’ (compare Psa 8:6<\/span>). Or it may have indicated loss of possession of the land, which he could no longer tread on. The case of Naomi indicated that property did not automatically pass to the nearest relative on death but went with the widow. Thus Num 27:8-11<\/span> might have been dependent on the right treatment of the widow. Spitting in the face was an indication of derision and disrespect (Num 12:14<\/span>; Job 30:10<\/span>). He was revealed as having failed in his duty. <\/p>\n Deu 25:10<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And his name shall be called in Israel, “The house of him who has his shoe loosed.” ’ <\/p>\n From then on his reputation would be tarnished. His house would be known as “The house of him who has his shoe loosed.” He had broken up the family unity, and divided the family. Instead of maintaining his brother’s name, he had tarnished his own. To be shoeless was for an Israelite a sign of indignity (Isa 20:2-3<\/span>). <\/p>\n While the incident in Ruth 4<\/span> illuminates what happened here the circumstances were somewhat different and illustrate the complications of succession law about which we would be wise not to dogmatise. There the responsibility of the kinsman redeemer was in mind, not that of the brother. But it still had to do with retaining land in the wider family. <\/p>\n A Woman Shall Not Touch The Private Parts of a Man Who Is Not Her Husband.<\/strong> <\/p>\n In the last regulation the ability of a deceased brother to produce children through a dutiful brother and wife was maintained. We are probably to see here the opposite case. The ability of a man to produce is destroyed by a revengeful woman. Whereas the last regulation would bring the woman praise, this would bring her humiliation and mutilation, for her aim was exactly the opposite. <\/p>\n Deu 25:11-12<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> When men strive together one with a brother, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who smites him, and puts forth her hand, and takes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity.’ <\/p>\n This rather unusual case may simply refer to a gross lack of decency, a woman deliberately and inexcusably taking a man’s private parts in her hand. This would undoubtedly have been looked on with horror as being something against all decency. But it may well refer to something more significant, the fact that what she did was with the intention of deliberately making the man unable to bear children, possibly by her crushing his private parts (compare Deu 23:1<\/span>). She was preventing the fulfilment of God’s command to ‘go forth and multiply’ and removing him from the assembly of Yahweh. This latter would explain the seriousness of the penalty, which was unquestionably intended to ensure that such a thing never happened. This is the only place in the Old Testament where mutilation is seemingly specifically prescribed as a punishment because of the dreadful mutilation that she caused, although it was assumed in the lex talionis as the ultimate measure. <\/p>\n Thus she would never again be able to caress her husband. Indeed the ‘cutting off’ of the ‘hand’ may actually refer to some action which also made it impossible for her to conceive, cutting off her ability to bear children in retaliation for her act of preventing the man having children, which would be seen as fulfilling the law of lex talionis (an eye for an eye). ‘Hand’ is sometimes used as a euphemism for the sexual organ, and the word used for ‘hand’ in verse 12 differs from that for ‘hand’ in Deu 25:11<\/span> suggesting that some distinction might be made. But the mutilation itself, in retaliation for the mutilation she had caused, would be a constant proclamation of what kind of woman she was. It would be her greatest shame. <\/p>\n Weights and Measures Are To Be Just ( Deu 25:13-16<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n God dealt totally honestly with His people and His judgments were always righteous. When He weighed them the balances were always accurate. The very idea of weighing was that it ensured accuracy and fairness. In the same way must His people use accurate weights and measures. There was clearly widespread use of false weights and measures in the ancient world, an art which has not been lost. See Lev 19:35-37<\/span>; Pro 11:1<\/span>; Pro 16:11<\/span>; Pro 20:10<\/span>; Eze 45:10<\/span>; Amo 8:5<\/span>; Mic 6:11<\/span>. <\/p>\n What is in mind here is the purchase and sale of produce, for it is mainly that which would require weighing. In the background may be the thought that the purchaser has laboured for his silver, as the ox did on threshing the grain, and must not therefore be ‘muzzled’ by being given short measure. But basic to it all is just dealing. <\/p>\n Deu 25:13-15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a great and a small. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a great and a small. Perfect and just weight shall you have; a perfect and just measure shall you have; that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.’ <\/p>\n Here God speaks very strongly against dishonesty in selling goods. To use different weights depending on the customer was inexcusable. To use different measures was equally inexcusable. The very purpose of weights and measures was to demonstrate fair dealing. To have ones which were themselves dishonest was total hypocrisy, and it especially hit at the poor and trusting, and those who had laboured hard to obtain food. <\/p>\n The twofold weights might have been used one for buying, and the other for selling, or one for weighing the goods and the other for weighing the silver, or one for the astute and the other for the simple. They could produce a combination of deceit. But this was not to be. All their dealings were to be totally open and honest. The weights and measures used must be precise, accurate and genuine. Then they would deserve to have long life in the land which Yahweh their God was giving them. <\/p>\n Deu 25:16<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> For all who do such things, even all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God.’ <\/p>\n For any dishonest action, and any dishonest behaviour is an abomination to Yahweh. The language is very strong. Such behaviour was firmly contrary to the covenant, and God hated it. <\/p>\n Ver. <\/em><\/strong>4. <\/strong>Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> In Judea, as well as in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, they made use of beeves to tread out the corn; and Dr. Shaw tells us, that the people of Barbary continue to tread out their corn after the custom of the East. Instead of beeves, they frequently make use of mules and horses, by tying by the neck three or four together in like manner, and whipping them afterwards round about the nedders, <\/em>as they call the treading floors, <\/em>(the Libycae areae. <\/em>Hor.) where the sheaves lie open and expanded, in the same manner as they are placed and prepared with us for threshing. This, indeed, is a much quicker way than ours, though less cleanly: for, as it is performed in the open air, (Hos 13:3<\/span>.) upon any round level plat of ground, dawbed over with cows’ dung, to prevent, as much as possible, the earth, sand, or gravel from rising; a great quantity of them all, notwithstanding this precaution, must unavoidably be taken up with the grain: at the same time the straw, which is their chief and only fodder, is hereby shattered to pieces; a circumstance very pertinently alluded to, 2Ki 13:7<\/span> where the king of Syria <\/em>is said to have made the Israelites like the dust by threshing. <\/em>Travels, p. 138. While the oxen were at work some muzzled their mouths, to hinder them from eating the corn, which Moses here forbids; instructing the people, by this symbolical precept, to be kind to their servants and labourers, but especially to those who ministered to them in holy things. So St. Paul applies it, 1Co 9:8-9<\/span>. 1Ti 5:18<\/span>. <\/p>\n Paul hath given the best comment upon this passage. 1Co 9:9-10<\/span> .<\/p>\n Deu 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn].<\/p>\n Ver. 4. That treadeth out the corn.<\/strong> ] Which was the manner of that country: whereunto also the prophet alludeth, Hos 10:11 “Ephraim is a heifer, that loveth to tread out the corn” (because while it treads, it feeds on the corn), but not to plough, because no refreshing till the work was done.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 25:4<\/p>\n 4You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.<\/p>\n Deu 25:4 You shall not muzzle the ox This shows kindness to animals (cf. Deu 22:6-7; Pro 12:10). This was used by Paul in the NT to support wages for Christian leaders (cf. 1Co 9:9; 1Ti 5:18). Paul is using (1) Jesus’ words in Luk 10:7 (cf. 1Ti 5:18) and (2) a rabbinical method of interpretation and application called lesser to greater. If this statement is true for oxen, surely it is true for human workers. See Expository Hermeneutics by Elliott E. Johnson, pp. 235-236.<\/p>\n See the Structure, “Threshing” for this verse in the book comments for Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n not muzzle. Animals generally muzzled in the East. Compare 1Co 9:9. 1Ti 5:18. <\/p>\n shalt not: In Judea, as well as in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, they made use of beeves to tread out the corn; and the same mode of threshing still obtains in Arabia, Barbary, and other eastern countries, to the present day. The sheaves lie open and expanded on the threshing floors, and the cattle continually move round them, and thus tread out the grain. The natives of Aleppo still religiously observe the ancient humane practice, inculcated by this law, of permitting the oxen to remain unmuzzled when treading out the corn. <\/p>\n muzzle: Pro 12:10, 1Co 9:9, 1Co 9:10, 1Ti 5:17, 1Ti 5:18 <\/p>\n treadeth out: Heb. thresheth, Isa 28:27, Hos 10:11 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Num 22:32 – Wherefore Job 24:11 – General Isa 30:24 – oxen<\/p>\n Deu 25:4. When he treadeth out the corn Which they did in those parts, either immediately by their hoofs, or by drawing carts or other instruments over the corn. Hereby God taught them humanity, even to their beasts that served them, and much more to their servants, or other men who laboured for them, especially to their ministers, 1Co 9:9.<\/p>\n Animals 25:4<\/span><\/p>\n God’s care for animals as His creatures lay behind this law. The Apostle Paul expounded the significance of this command (1Co 9:9; 1Ti 5:18).<\/p>\n "The purpose clearly was not only to provide for the ox itself but to make the point by a fortiori<\/span> argument that if a mere animal was worthy of humane treatment, how much more so was a human being created as the image of God."Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n