The oxen.
The apostle draws from this passage the general principle that the laborer is entitled to eat of the fruits of his labor (1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Corinthians 9:10). His application teaches us to look for similar general principles wrapped up in other precepts of the Law. We learn—
I. ANIMALS ARE ENTITLED TO GENEROUS TREATMENT. The ox that trod out the corn was not to be muzzled. He was to be permitted to eat of the fruits of his work. Kindness to animals is a duty:
1. Which man owes to the creatures. Severe moralists, arguing that animals, being destitute of reason, are also destitute of rights, would bring all man's duties towards them under the head of duties to himself (e.g. Kant). Alford thinks this to be implied in Paul's language. But Paul's argument, if it is to be pressed in this connection, rather implies the contrary. It recognizes in the ox, on the ground of its being a laborer, a kind of right to be provided for. All that the apostle affirms is that the precept had an end beyond the reference to oxen, that the "care for oxen" was subordinate to the inculcation of a principle of general application. Our duty to the creatures rests on the ground that they are sentient beings, capable of pain and pleasure, and on the law of love, which requires us to diffuse happiness, and avoid inflicting needless suffering.
2. Which man owes to himself. For this view, while not the whole of the truth, is an important part of it. Leibnitz, in a small treatise written for the education of a prince, advised that, during youth, he should not be permitted to torment or give pain to any living thing, lest, by indulging the spirit of cruelty, he should contract a want of feeling for his fellow-men. Alford says, "The good done to a man's immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes."
II. THE HUMAN LABORER IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF HIS LABORS. Theoretically, he does so every time he is paid wages. In the distribution of the fruits of production, the part which the laborer gets, we are told, is wages, the share of the landowner is rent, that of the capitalist is interest, and the Government takes taxes. Practically, however, wages are settled, not by abstract rules of fairness, but by competition, which may press so hard upon the laborer as (till things right themselves) to deprive him of his fair proportion of industrial profits. The wage system is far from working satisfactorily. As society advances, it appears to be leading to an increasing amount of bitterness and friction. Masters and men represent opposing interests, and stand, as it were, at daggers drawn. It is easier to see the evil than to devise a cure. Economists (Mill, Jevons, etc.) seem to look mainly in the direction of some form of co-operation. Their schemes are principally two;
1. Industrial co-operation.
2. Industrial partnerships—the system according to which a fixed proportion of profits is assigned for division amongst the workmen engaged in production.
III. MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL ARE ENTITLED TO BE SUPPORTED BY THEIR FLOCKS. This is the application made by Paul (1 Corinthians 9:1-27.; cf. Matthew 10:10-12; Galatians 6:6). Christian ministers, laboring in spiritual things, and by that work withdrawn from ordinary avocations, are to be cheerfully supported. The text applies to this case more strictly than to the case of workmen claiming to participate in profits. The workman claims but his own. The right of the minister to support is of a different kind. He labors in things spiritual, but, it is to be hoped, with a higher end than the mere obtaining of a livelihood. While, therefore, his support is a duty, it is, like duties of benevolence generally, not one that can be enforced by positive law. The right to support is a moral, not a legal one. It creates an obligation, but, as moralists say, an indeterminate obligation. It is an obligation to be freely accepted, and as freely discharged.—J.O.