ing ox,” cited to the same effect in τ Tim. ν. 18,—ovd with fut. reproducing the Heb. lo’ with impf. of emphatic prohibi- tion. Deut. xxv. 4, detached where it stands, belongs to a series of Mosaic commands enjoining humane treatment of animals, regarded as being in some sense a part of the sacred community : cf. Exod. xx. το, xxiii. 12/10, Deut. xxii. 4,6f., ro. Corn was threshed either by the feet of cattle (Mic. iv. 12 f.), or by a sledge driven over the threshing-floor (2 Sam xxiv. 22).--μὴ τῶν Body µέλει τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ.; “Is it for the oxen that God cares, or on our account, by all means, does He say (it)?”” The argumentative πάντως (cf. Rom. iti. g, Luke iv. 23), ‘‘on every ground’’—slightly diff. in ver. 22, more so in v. το: not that ‘God is con- cerned wholly (exclustvely) for us” in this rule; but on every account a provision made for the beasts in man’s service must hold good, ὢ fortiori, for God’s proper servants; cf. Matt. vi. 26 ff., also x. 31, ΧΙ. 12. δι ἡμᾶς, emphatically repeated, signifies not men as against oxen, but mos evangelit ministros (Est.) in analogy to oxen; the right of Christ’s ministers “to: eat and drink” is safeguarded by the principle that gives the ox his provender out of the corn he treads. Paul’s method in such interpretations is radically diff. from that of Philo, who says, Od ὑπὲρ. τῶν ἀλόγων 6 vopos, GAN ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν κ. λόγον ἐχόντων, De Victim. offer., § 1: Philo destroys the historical sense; Paul extracts its moral principle.
Ver. τοῦ. 8 ἡμᾶς, yap (cf. 1 Thess.
δ---13,
6° ἆ 5
éw 4 ἐλπίδι.1