Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 9

Today’s reading: 1 Samuel 21; 1 Corinthians 9

I strongly dislike 1 Corinthians 9:8-10…

It’s not the concept, but the content of Paul’s argument that makes me say that.

“Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak 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.”

Paul is making the argument that a Christian worker should expect to be paid/supported by the community they are serving. Ultimately, Paul refused to take payment of any kind from the Corinthians despite this expectation because he didn’t want to allow any avenue of attack against the gospel (e.g. “This isn’t true, he’s only in this to scam you out of your money!”). But he is establishing this point in defense of the gospel to dispel accusations that they were just trying to take advantage of the people in Corinth in some way.

Now, like I said at the beginning, I have no qualms with the concept. If someone is giving themselves away in full-time ministry to the community, the community should support them if they can. However, what I take issue with is how Paul makes this argument.

To make his point Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 where Israel was instructed, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” This is referring to grinding grain by having an ox drag a heavy millstone over the grain to crush it. While the ox was dragging the stone it would be able to bend down and eat a mouthful of the grain it was crushing as it went, but a muzzle could be used to prevent that “loss” of product. However, God told the Israelites that they were not to muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, meaning they were to allow it to take the occasional mouthful as it went.

This is a perfectly good reference for Paul to use here, especially because this is case-law in Deuteronomy, meaning it is an example of how things should be handled, not an exhaustive statement, except for what he says next. Paul goes on to say, “Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake…” If Paul was merely using this as an example to make a point (just like he does in 1 Timothy 5:18), then this is perfectly fine, or if he uses it as the basis of an a fortiori argument (if this, how much more so that?), then again, I would say he is spot on. But Paul does not merely say, “If God is concerned that an ox can eat from his work, how much more so God’s workers?” No, Paul goes on to say that God wasn’t even talking about oxen, but wrote this about people doing His work…

Here’s the problem, nobody in Israel ever would have read that passage in Deuteronomy and thought, “Clearly this has nothing to do with oxen and is about paying people to teach the Torah!” That might have been an extension of their thinking on this verse, but they would have left their oxen unmuzzled. This verse also isn’t in a context where it could be taken, in the original sense, as a fortiori. It is in a section of Deuteronomy where a bunch of various laws are laid out scatter shot, and nothing bounding this instruction has anything to do with paying Christian workers. So no, Paul, you’re wrong, God was clearly concerned about oxen! Gah!!

Honestly, I have to assume that Paul is making an a fortiori example here and essentially saying that people are of such greater concern to the Lord than animals that it would be absurd to refuse to muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain on the basis of Deuteronomy 25, but then to balk at the idea that a Christian worker should be paid for their labor. I assume that when he says it was written for their sake he is alluding to the vast gulf between the importance and value of the two types of work such that the ox treading grain doesn’t even really register on the same scale as the human servant of Christ. But while I make those assumptions, and while I understand and agree with his point, I really hate how strongly he makes that claim that God was not concerned about oxen when He wrote that because God was clearly concerned about oxen when He wrote that. 

Of all the things in the Bible that people are bothered by, this is probably a pretty silly thing for me to get worked up over, but for some reason, ever since the first time I encountered this passage, every time I read it, inside my head I’m yelling, “No Paul, He was talking about oxen!” 🤷‍♂️