Commentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians John Calvin
John Calvin muzzling of the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; and with the view of applying it to the subject in hand, he says, that God was not concerned as to oxen, but rather had regard to men.
In the first place, it may be asked, Why has he more particularly selected this proof, while he had in the law passages that were much clearer? as for example, Deuteronomy 24:15,
The wages of the hireling shall not remain with thee over night. If any one, however, will take a nearer view, he will acknowledge that there is more force in this quotation, in which the Lord requires cattle to be taken care of, for from this it is inferred, from the less to the greater, how much equity he requires among men, when he wishes that it should be shown to brute animals. When he says, that God does not take care for oxen, you are not to understand him as meaning to exclude oxen from the care of God's Providence, inasmuch as he does not overlook even the least sparrow. (Matthew 6:26, and Matthew 10:29.) Nor is it as if he meant to expound that precept allegorically, as some hair-brained spirits take occasion from this to turn everything into allegories. Thus they turn dogs into men, trees into angels, and turn all scripture into a laughing-stock.
Paul's meaning is simple — that, when the Lord enjoins humanity to oxen, he does not do it for the sake of oxen, but rather from a regard to men, on whose account, too, the very oxen were created. That compassion, therefore, towards oxen should be a stimulus to us to stir up to the exercise of humanity among us, as Solomon says, (Proverbs 12:10,)
The righteous man hath a care over his beast, but the bowels of the wicked are cruel.
Let it then be understood by you, that God is not so concerned for oxen, as to have had merely a regard to oxen in making that law, for he had mankind in view, and wished to accustom them to equity, that they might not defraud the workman of his hire. For it is not the ox that has the principal part in plowing or treading out the corn, but man, by whose industry the ox himself is set to work. Hence, what he immediately adds — He that ploweth, should plow in hope, etc. is an exposition of the precept, as if he had said, that it extends generally to any kind of recompense for labor.
10. Because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope. There is a twofold reading in this passage, even in the Greek manuscripts, but the one that is more generally received is — He that thrasheth, in hope of partaking of his hope At the same time, the one that does not repeat the term hope twice in the second clause appears simpler, and more natural. 485 Hence, if I were at liberty to choose, I would prefer to read it thus: He that ploweth should
485The common reading is — {καὶ} {ὁ} {ἀλοῶν} {τὢς} {ἐνπίδος} {αὐτοῦ} {μετέχειν} {επ} {᾿} {ελπίδι}, and he that thrasheth in hope should be a partaker of his hope In the other reading, the {επ} {᾿} {ἐλπίδι} (in hope) are omitted. The latter is the reading in five ancient and three later MSS. The common reading is construed by Bloomfield as follows --- {καὶ} {ὁ} {ἀλοῶν} ({ὀφείλει} {ἀλοᾷν}) {επ} {᾿} {ἐλπίδι} ({τοῦ}) {μετέχειν} {τὢς} {ελπίδος} {αὐτοῦ} ``And he that thrasheth ought to thrash in hope to partake of (the fruits of) his hope.'' --- Ed