![]() In that event, his self-interest would entail preserving as much of his threshed grain as possible on the other hand, he would have no intrinsic motivation to let the ox eat of his grain. Economically, it would not make sense if the owner of the ox muzzled his own ox while it is doing hard labor.”īy process of elimination, this leaves us with the situation of a man borrowing or renting an ox to thresh his own grain. As Jan Verbruggen notes in his excellent article on this verse, “The economic value of the ox far outweighs the value of the threshed grain that an ox could eat while it is threshing. It is difficult to see why the command would make it into the Mosaic law given the self-interest that would already ensure such actions. Oxen were viewed as property, and there was a built-in motivation for maintaining one’s property to perform at a maximal level. If the command is directed to the owner of the ox-whether threshing in his own field or in another’s-it is difficult to understand why the stipulation is required in the first place. We must reason our way through the situation, asking if one or more of these three remaining options makes more sense of the surrounding literary context, the cultural situation, and the divine motivation. It is more likely that an owner of the ox is threshing his own grain or someone else’s, or that a renter/borrower of the ox is threshing his own grain. The option of a man renting or borrowing an ox to thresh someone else’s grain, while possible, seems historically unlikely. All four options are perfectly compatible with the terminology and structure of this short command. There is nothing in the Hebrew grammar to answer these questions for us. Schematically we could represent the possible logical options as follows: Each option could then be subdivided based on the location of the threshing: the owner of the ox could be (1a) threshing his own grain, or (1b) threshing someone else’s grain likewise, the borrower/renter could be (2a) threshing his own grain, or (2b) threshing someone else’s grain. There are two basic options for the identity of the man to whom this command is directed: he is either (1) the owner of the ox, or (2) someone borrowing or renting the ox. 12:10 Jonah 4:11), or is there an element of human justice and protection at play (cf. One question that commentators rarely ask or answer is this: Is it the owner of the ox, or it is someone who is renting or borrowing it? And what is the motivation behind the command? Is the primary issue Yahweh’s compassion and protection for animals (cf. But many interpreters stop at this point and fail to press in more deeply. Virtually all interpreters have recognized the upshot: if an ox is without muzzle, then it can partake of the fruit of its own labor, and this is regarded as a good thing. Yahweh through Moses is saying that this is wrong. If an ox wears a muzzle during the process of tramping the grain on the threshing floor, then it cannot eat the grain. The terseness of the command means that the motivation, the ground, and the application must all be inferred. In my opinion, this is a more significant consideration than it appears at first glance. Whether the ox is owned or borrowed by the recipient of this command must be determined from context (both textually and historically) and logic. A good literal translation would be: “do not muzzle an ox in its threshing.” (“Out/of the grain” is added in many English translations for clarification Paul himself adds it to his quotation for the same reason.) Contra the NET Bible, there is no specification of the owner of the ox in other words, there is no indication of possession (e.g., “your ox” or “his ox”). There are no disputed textual or grammatical issues at play in this Deuteronomy 25:4. We can answer questions like this by going back to the text and asking some questions of our own.Īre There Issues with the Original Text and Grammar? Is he quoting this verse out of context?.Is he focusing on contemporary application rather than original meaning?.Is he merely referring to the ultimate intention of the passage?.Is Paul saying that Moses never meant this to be applied to literal oxen?.Does he not certainly speak for our sake?.Is it for oxen that God is concerned?.In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 he asks rhetorically: Paul, on the other hand, seems to say that God isn’t primarily concerned about oxen. Moses (serving as the covenant mediator for Yahweh) seems compassionately concerned about the oxen getting enough to eat, getting their fair share when working hard. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |