The Unmuzzled Ox
March 5, 2012

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4)

This Mosaic regulation would seem rather insignificant, except that it is quoted twice in the New Testament. "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?" (1 Corinthians 9:9-10). Yes, but that is not the main purpose behind this law. "Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." This application is drawn in verse 14: "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." That is, supporting financially those who devote full time to God's work is not "charitable giving," but compensation for services, with the pay to be provided by those who receive the benefit of their labours.

This is even more clear in the second reference: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:17-18 ), the latter part quoting words of Christ (Luke 10:7). Incidentally, note that both New Testament and Old Testament Scriptures are considered divinely inspired and authoritative on any subject with which they deal.

The subject here is just compensation for those who devote their time, training, and abilities to the work of the Word, under the call and leading of God, as recognised by the people of God. This seemingly insignificant principle, if faithfully obeyed, would greatly enlarge the effectiveness and outreach of the Christian witness in the world. HMM

For more . . . .

Congratulations on your wonderful imagination, and ability to defend the indefensible.
I advise you to read the Bible in its entirety and quote two passages not changing its essence.
The tithe of the common people is not biblical. It is an invention of the pastors who want to live outside the law of God at the expense of fools.
It's that simple.

Ptolomeus:

Congratulations on your wonderful imagination, and ability to defend the indefensible.
I advise you to read the Bible in its entirety and quote two passages not changing its essence.
The tithe of the common people is not biblical. It is an invention of the pastors who want to live outside the law of God at the expense of fools.
It's that simple.

Have you got scriptural references to back up your assertions?

OLAADEGBU:

Have you got scriptural references to back up your assertions?

estimate:
You should respect the Bible, which says so much love. You should know that removing phrases from context is not ethical.
If you want to talk about tithing, do so in the context of the Old Testament.
Read Malachi 3 to 3.10 and you will understand that tithing was established by God for the Levite priests, who stole their offerings.
The tithes are set for the children of Levi, not to the Gentiles.
You understand that these offerings to the God of the Old Testament were in oils, grains and animals, which were burned in the holocaust to God.
Did not give money to God, no pastor was enriched at the expense of others.
You cite the Bible with respect. Do not try to put you in the mouth of God what was not said to justify their support for the tithe.
The Bible does not say that.
You defend your thinking ethically.
My respects!

Ptolomeus:

estimate:
You should respect the Bible, which says so much love. You should know that removing phrases from context is not ethical.

I do respect the Bible, do you?  If you do kindly show me where phrases in the article have been removed out of context.

Ptolomeus:

If you want to talk about tithing, do so in the context of the Old Testament.

Why are you getting emotional about tithing?

Ptolomeus:

Read Malachi 3 to 3.10 and you will understand that tithing was established by God for the Levite priests, who stole their offerings.

Really?

Ptolomeus:

The tithes are set for the children of Levi, not to the Gentiles.

Since you are a Gentile why bother yourself about tithes?  Levi even paid tithes in Abraham when he paid to Melchizedec, so let the children of Abraham bother about tithes.

Ptolomeus:

You understand that these offerings to the God of the Old Testament were in oils, grains and animals, which were burned in the holocaust to God.

Burnt in the holocaust? 

Ptolomeus:

Did not give money to God, no pastor was enriched at the expense of others.

Is that what you understood by this article? 

Ptolomeus:

You cite the Bible with respect. Do not try to put you in the mouth of God what was not said to justify their support for the tithe.

In all your outbursts you have not scripturally debunked what has been posted.

Ptolomeus:

The Bible does not say that.

What did the Bible say?  Did you read what our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul said about this?

Ptolomeus:

You defend your thinking ethically.

What does that mean?

Ptolomeus:

My respects!

Rather respect the laws of God.

OLAADEGBU:


Burnt in the holocaust? 

The original meaning of holocaust before it got used specifically for the Jewish holocaust.

A holocaust is a religious animal sacrifice that is completely consumed by fire. The word derives from the Ancient Greek holocaustos (ὁλόκαυστος from ὅλος "whole" + καυστός "burnt", which is used solely for one of the major forms of sacrifice.
When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, as the Septuagint, the translators used the Greek term to translate the "burnt offering" in Ancient Israel.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(sacrifice)

So yes, the bible is full of holocausts.

Quote from: Ptolomeus on Today at 04:07:04 PM
Read Malachi 3 to 3.10 and you will understand that tithing was established by God for the Levite priests, who stole their offerings.

OLAADEGBU:


Really?

Pastor AIO:

The original meaning of holocaust before it got used specifically for the Jewish holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(sacrifice)

So yes, the bible is full of holocausts.

I see.  Thanks for that. Do you also believe that the tithes then was meant for the holocaust?

Ptolomeus:

Quote from: Ptolomeus on Today at 04:07:04 PM
Read Malachi 3 to 3.10 and you will understand that tithing was established by God for the Levite priests, who stole their offerings.

Thanks for the information, but how does this detract from the law that was enforced in the OP?

OLAADEGBU:

I see.  Thanks for that. Do you also believe that the tithes then was meant for the holocaust?

If holocaust can include my thorough devouring of what ever is put in front of me then yet, you place your tithe in front of me and it will all experience holocaust, from the grain, to the oil, to the fruit to the meat. I will holocaustise everything. and if you're not quick nothing will remain for you.

Pastor AIO:

If holocaust can include my thorough devouring of what ever is put in front of me then yet, you place your tithe in front of me and it will all experience holocaust, from the grain, to the oil, to the fruit to the meat. I will holocaustise everything. and if you're not quick nothing will remain for you.

Are you serious? That is sacrilege o! How will you holocaustise in the light of the Mosaic law below?

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4)

Dear friend:
I do not enter here to compete with anyone. Much less with Biblical themes, that does not really interest me.
But you raised the issue, you unknown Malachi, ignores the biblical term holocaust ,
Perhaps you thought that the tithe was given to the priests so that they enjoy the same? That's what pastors do today, not what the Bible says. The offerings were for God, not for priests.
I come to tell you very respectfully, read Malachi.
Now you ask me why that change has occurred ,
It should be you who makes The proposals, not surprised when I quote Malachi.
You have every right to pay tithing, whether you believe it true, I do not.
With the only thing I disagree is that you try to argue the validity of tithing without really knowing what tithing is biblically.
Moreover, I express my greatest respect.

Ptolomeus:

Dear friend:
I do not enter here to compete with anyone. Much less with Biblical themes, that does not really interest me.
But you raised the issue, you unknown Malachi, ignores the biblical term holocaust ,
Perhaps you thought that the tithe was given to the priests so that they enjoy the same? That's what pastors do today, not what the Bible says. The offerings were for God, not for priests.
I come to tell you very respectfully, read Malachi.
Now you ask me why that change has occurred ,
It should be you who makes The proposals, not surprised when I quote Malachi.
You have every right to pay tithing, whether you believe it true, I do not.
With the only thing I disagree is that you try to argue the validity of tithing without really knowing what tithing is biblically.
Moreover, I express my greatest respect.

You get yourself worked up on Malachi, tithes and the holocaust. Can you just tell me how all that explains this law of Moses?

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4)

Remember that it is not good to want to teach, while still not been learned.

   The new answer to your question is simple.
   You read the Bible and learn before posting.
   My greeting.

Ptolomeus:

Remember that it is not good to want to teach, while still not been learned.

The new answer to your question is simple.
You read the Bible and learn before posting.
My greeting.

Teacher, are you saying that you can't teach us how Deuteronomy 25:4 applies to us because you have not learned?

Since our so called teachers here would not, cannot or did not teach us how Deut. 25:4 applies to the Church today let the Scripture explain itself in the words of Paul who quoted that same Scripture.

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? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. [11] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? [12] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should ° hinder the gospel of Christ. [13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? [14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. [15] But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void (1 Corinthians 9:9-15).

Paul is quoting Deut 25:4 here saying it is written, which means he is not saying his own words here but stressing that, even though he had a right to marry, he chose not to for the gospel’s sake.  He also said in verse 14, that he and others who preach the gospel had the right to be supported by those who had profited from their ministry.  Paul chose not to be supported so as not to be a stumblingblock to those who needed the gospel.

Paul said that it is the Lord who ordained it that the God-called full time ministers should be supported by those whose income is from secular sources and the fact that it is actually an ordinance of God.  They may choose, as Paul did on occasion, to support themselves in other ways, but this should not be expected or required of them.

Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope;

Now the question I want to ask you is this: Does God care for Oxen? According to Paul, No! That passage was 'altogether' for our sakes. ie. there is not part of that passage that is about oxen but what he talks about is altogether about humans. All of it.

What would Jesus say about that?


Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

Pastor AIO:

Now the question I want to ask you is this: Does God care for Oxen? According to Paul, No! That passage was 'altogether' for our sakes. ie. there is not part of that passage that is about oxen but what he talks about is altogether about humans. All of it.

Paul asked a rhetorical question and you don't have to put words into his mouth because he did not say no.  He answered his question that God's reason and import is for our own good.  Everything that God created is for our own good.  Have you thought about Paul's next rhetorical question in verse 18?

Pastor AIO:

What would Jesus say about that?

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

The fact that our heavenly Father feeds the birds teaches us that He will take care of us.  You should learn how use natural laws to explain the spiritual as it concerns us. You should also read Luke 10:7 to see what Jesus said to support the import of the message.

^^^ The point is really simple and not that hard to understand. I agree that indeed Paul does not say God does not care for oxen. It really boils down to something like does God care only* about oxen?

*And yep, I added "only"; well not only me, some Bible translations do too.

Maybe this little exercise could help demonstrate the point?

Are you harassing me because of 100 naira?

Are you harassing me because of only 100 naira?

Difference?

Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope;

I think that Paul answers his own rhetorical question with the subsequent statements. Let me paraphrase what he said:

Does God Care enough for Oxen to make a law for them?

No, but the law was made Altogether for us humans. (The word 'altogether' or 'entirely' removes any suggestion that the law could be applied to animals. the law was entirely for us, not us and animals).

OLAADEGBU:

Paul asked a rhetorical question and you don't have to put words into his mouth because he did not say no.  He answered his question that God's reason and import is for our own good.  Everything that God created is for our own good.  Have you thought about Paul's next rhetorical question in verse 18?

If I ask if the lamborghini in my drive is Olaadegbu's, and then I follow with the question or is it mine, and then I follow that with the statement that in fact it is entirely mine . . . does that no equate to saying that No, the lamborghini is not Olaadegbu's.

Pastor AIO:

I think that Paul answers his own rhetorical question with the subsequent statements.  Let me paraphrase what he said:

Does God Care enough for Oxen to make a law for them?

No, but the law was made Altogether for us humans.  (The word 'altogether' or 'entirely' removes any suggestion that the law could be applied to animals. the law was entirely for us, not us and animals). 

If I ask if the lamborghini in my drive is Olaadegbu's, and then I follow with the question or is it mine, and then I follow that with the statement that in fact it is entirely mine . . . does that no equate to saying that No, the lamborghini is not Olaadegbu's. 

Is that merely a paraphrase or an addition to the text?

Bear in mid your own allegations about people adding stuff to Bible text!

A selection of translations of the verse.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

But it is understood that he said it for our sake and for our sake it was written, because it is incumbent upon the plower to plow for hope, and whoever threshes, for the hope of a crop.

NLT

Wasn't he actually speaking to us? Yes, it was written for us, so that the one who plows and the one who threshes the grain might both expect a share of the harvest.

NIV

Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.

ESV

Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

ISV

Isn't he really speaking for our benefit? Yes, this was written for our benefit, because the one who plows should plow in hope, and the one who threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

NASB

Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.

KJV

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

I think it will stand or fall on how you interpret the greek word Pantos. I see that some of the translations you put above drop the word altogether (unintended pun).

http://concordances.org/greek/panto_s_3843.htm

http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/9-10.htm



If the law was written altogether for us, ie Pantos for us, then it is NOT about Oxen.

Some trying to say it is about oxen but can be applied to humans too are stumped by that word Pantos. If the law is Pantos about humans, then that means it is totally about humans, therefore there is no room for interpreting it in favour of Oxen.

As far as I can see, the sense of the text is clear enough --- whatever you make of "pantos" not only the word but also the appropriate punctuation.

By the way is not the same "pantos" again translated as "altogether" in the second verse below - and what is the effect there then?


1 Cor 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 

EDIT and the same word is translated elsewhere as: "by all means", "surely", "must needs", "no doubt", "in no wise", "at all".

Why?

See http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3843&t=KJV

Enigma:

By the way is not the same "pantos" again translated as "altogether" in the second verse below - and what is the effect there then?


1 Cor 5
EDIT and the same word is translated elsewhere as: "by all means", "surely", "must needs", "no doubt", "in no wise", "at all".

Why?

See http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3843&t=KJV

Because those words all mean approximately the same thing. So if the Mosaic law was altogether written for us, where is there room for Oxen?

If the mosaic law was written by all means, surely, without doubt, anyhow-you-look-at-it, totally, for Men then it follows that there is no room for Oxen in the law.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Don't hang with fornicators: yet you can't do this totally/altogether/by all means/ absolutely/Pantos-ly because that would require you to leave this world.

In other words it is impossible to live in this world with having dealings with sinners, but to the small extent that we can we should try to avoid them. We can't do this pantos-ly.

Still adding to the text, I'm afraid.

The sense we get is: this was spoken for our benefit; this was written for our benefit; he was speaking to us; he was speaking for our benefit.

Talk of "Mosaic law was not written for animals" is really adding to the text.

OLAADEGBU:

Teacher, are you saying that you can't teach us how Deuteronomy 25:4 applies to us because you have not learned?

Estimate.
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not a teacher.
You are confused, because you who want to teach, and in view of the facts you have not learned.
Learn to listen to you first qualified people as Pastor AIO or Enigma, which has taken the trouble to explain.
Open your ears, and then if you try to give lectures.
Do not use isolated passages from the Bible without reading it all.
And do not you angry with me because I try to explain things you do not know.
My regards,

Enigma:

Still adding to the text, I'm afraid.

The sense we get is: this was spoken for our benefit; this was written for our benefit; he was speaking to us; he was speaking for our benefit.

Talk of "Mosaic law was not written for animals" is really adding to the text.

aw c'mon dude!! the text itself says 'don't muzzle OXEN'. Oxen is an animal.

Paul applies the text to human preachers, and asks 'does God care for animals'? It is a rhetoric question but what is the point he is making? Is it that though the text mentions oxen the text is not about oxen? How am I adding animals to the text?

Perhaps you could advice me on what you understand by the mosaic text.

Also could you explain how you manage to understand this:

The sense we get is: this was spoken for our benefit; this was written for our benefit; he was speaking to us; he was speaking for our benefit.

. . . without taking the Oxen out of the text.

^ What you are adding to the text is not merely 'oxen'; rather that the law was (or was not) made for oxen!

The text simply says what was written or said is/was for 'us'; for our beneft. At no time does Paul indicate that the rule/saying concerning oxen does not apply, has ceased to apply or was not intended to (or to continue to) apply --- about oxen. His point is that the law is written for 'us', for 'our benefit', for man to apply --- thus, legitimately, the saying about not muzzling the oxen can be applied even in a different context to mean he who ploughs/threshes in hope should be partaker of the hope.

The saying 'when the king's house burns down, it makes it more beautiful' is altogether for our benefit ------ thus we can apply it even when the hut of a very poor man (far from a king) burns down. 

Thanks, Enigma for sorting out the small matter of God's "care for the oxen" I will like to reiterate Paul's take on the unmuzzled ox.

For it is written in the law of Moses,

It is a shame that many NT preachers ignore the spiritual importance of the mosaic law in our life today.  Paul is here quoting the law of Moses as a basis of what he is enforcing in the NT.

Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.

This is the bone of contention which needs to be addressed in the church today.  How do we apply this law in our churches today?  Some may say that this is in the OT and therefore does not apply to us.  How does the Holy Spirit through Paul say this applies to the Church?

Doth God take care for oxen?

I believe this has been thoroughly addressed by Enigma.

[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope?

This is clear enough for us to understand.  The Scriptures has been written for us to learn thereof.

[11] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? [12] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ[/b]?[/i][/size]

The greedy prosperity gospellers were abound in Paul days but this was not a reason not to obey this law.  We should not throw the baby out with the dirty water.

[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? [14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. [15] But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void (1 Corinthians 9:9-15).

Here, we see that the Lord has ordained that full time ministers should be supported by those whose income is from secular sources, this is a command but should be done by willing and obedient servants of God. We see that Paul consecrated himself not to take advantage of this provision so as not to be a stumblingblock as many are today.