Deuteronomy 25 – More Laws on Various Subjects

A. Two laws to protect criminals and animals.

1. (1-3) A limit on corporal punishment.

“If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. Forty blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight.

a. If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court: By the direction of God, Israel’s legal system made the distinction between criminal cases (where rulers punished crime through judges) and civil cases (where the people brought disputes before judges). This was a way to resolve disputes apart from violence.

b. They justify the righteous and condemn the guilty: Regarding both criminal and civil cases, the duty of Israel’s judges was simple. They were to approve and encourage the righteous and condemn those who were guilty. When the righteous are penalized and the guilty are rewarded, courts of justice are not fulfilling their God-given responsibility (Romans 13:4).

c. If the wicked man deserves to be beaten: The context is of a civil case, a dispute between men. Those who were found to be wicked in their treatment of others, even in disputes between men, received physical punishment (or presumably, the equivalent). This would discourage those who were in the wrong from bringing the case before judges, and encourage disputes to be settled without bringing the matter before judges.

i. The law did not require 40 lashes; the punishment of the guilty man would be according to his guilt, and not more. However, the total number of strokes could not exceed 40.

ii. “Among the Mohammedans there are very few law-suits, and the reason is given…because they that sue others without just cause are to be whipped publicly.” (Trapp)

d. Forty blows may he give him and no more: Though sometimes a beating was the appropriate punishment, God’s law also recognized that punishment could be excessive, and therefore gave limits to penalties. The penalty was to be given in the presence of the judge, so he could make sure the punishment was not excessive.

i. In 2 Corinthians 11:24, Paul listed this among his apostolic credentials: From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. The forty stripes minus one means Paul was beaten by the Jewish authorities with thirty-nine blows on five different occasions. One was subtracted both out of caution of a miscount, and as a small expression of mercy.

e. Lest…your brother be humiliated in your sight: God commanded that the dignity of even the guilty man be respected. To flog a man more than his wrong deserved would be to treat him more like an animal than a man.

i. “His sinful conduct against a brother was not sufficient cause to rob him of his full dignity.” (Merrill)

ii. “It is interesting to notice what excessive punishment is to the mind of God. It is anything which makes our brother appear vile in our sight.” (Morgan)

2. (4) The command to not muzzle the ox.

“You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.

a. You shall not muzzle an ox: This law commanded the humane treatment of a working animal. In those days, grain could be broken away from its husk by having an ox walk on it repeatedly (usually around a circle). It would be cruel to force the ox to walk on all the grain, yet to muzzle him so he couldn’t eat of it.

i. “The care for dumb creatures is part of our religious duty…. Oh, when will the travail of creation cease! Man’s sin has indeed worked woe for the lower orders of creation.” (Meyer)

ii. “The prohibition here (Deuteronomy 25:4) about muzzling the working ox reflects the spirit of mercy that pervades all of God’s dealings with his creation, human or otherwise. The purpose clearly was not only to provide for the ox itself but to make the point by a fortiori argument that if a mere animal was worthy of humane treatment, how much more so was a human being created as the image of God.” (Merrill)

b. You shall not muzzle an ox: In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 the apostle Paul applied this principle to the minister’s right to be supported by the people he serves. Under normal circumstances, it is not right to expect a minister to serve a congregation and to receive no support from the congregation.

i. 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 suggests the application to God’s ministers was the real point of this command, because in that passage Paul asked, is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes?

B. Two laws dealing with family matters.

1. (5-10) The marriage obligation of surviving brothers.

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’

a. One of them dies and has no son: In ancient Israel it was seen as a great tragedy for a man to die without leaving descendants to carry on his name, with no one to give his family inheritance to. Therefore, if a man dies and has no son, it was the responsibility of one of his brothers to take the deceased brother’s widow as a wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. This custom is sometimes called levirate marriage.

i. “The practice of levirate marriage (Lat. levir, brother-in-law or husband’s brother) was not peculiar to Israel, for it was practiced among the Hittites and Assyrians as well as in countries such as India, Africa and South America…. The purpose of the custom was to ensure that a man who died before he had produced a male heir might nevertheless have an heir.” (Thompson)

ii. “Was the law of levirate marriage an approval of polygamy? Hardly! It was rather an alternate arrangement under specific bounds to make possible the retention of landed property throughout the families of Israel.” (Kalland)

b. The firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel: When a son was born to this union, he would not be counted as the son of the surviving brother, but as the son to the deceased brother.

i. Son here may simply mean child. “In the history of the interpretation of this Deuteronomic law, difference of opinion existed among Jewish expositors whether ben in Deuteronomy 25:5 meant ‘son’ or ‘child.’ The LXX [Septuagint] and Josephus render it ‘child.’ Moses had already established that when no male heir existed, daughters would be heirs of their father’s property (Numbers 27:1-8).” (Kalland)

c. He will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother: If the brothers of the deceased man refused to take this responsibility, they were to be called to open shame by the widow. The shame was compounded as they would remove his sandal and the widow would spit in his face.

i. “The legislation makes possible the release of the brother-in-law from his duty, while definitely discouraging such failure by the shame involved in being brought to court, spit upon, and labeled as ‘The Family of the Unsandaled.’” (Kalland)

ii. This explains the circumstances of Ruth 4, where one relative of Ruth’s deceased husband refused to take this responsibility, and the removal of the sandal demonstrated the refusal (Ruth 4:6-8). There is no reference to spitting in the face in the record of Ruth 4.

iii. Him who had his sandal removed: “It is difficult to find the reason of these ceremonies of degradation. Perhaps the shoe was the emblem of power; and by stripping it off, deprivation of that power and authority was represented. Spitting in the face was a mark of the utmost ignominy; but the Jews, who are legitimate judges in this case, say that the spitting was not in his face, but before his face on the ground.” (Clarke)

2. (11-12) Wives forbidden to interfere in their husband’s fights.

“If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

a. The wife of one draws near to rescue her husband: This unusual law condemned a woman who interfered in her husband’s fight, battling for her husband in a dishonorable way (seizes him by the genitals).

b. Then you shall cut off her hand: This extreme punishment was meant to give an example in similar cases, commanding strong punishment against those who would fight in a way that would be unlikely to murder a man, but could “murder” his potential descendants. It also reinforced the basic principle that there are some fights or battles that women should not involve themselves in.

i. The woman faced a penalty broadly based on the “eye for an eye” principle. She had mutilated a man, ruining his ability to father children. Her body would also be mutilated by the amputation of her hand, the part of her body that committed the offense.

ii. “Possibly it was representative of similar offenses and provided a standard for judgment in all such cases. Perhaps also, the law arose from the desire to protect the reproductive organs and thus obviate anything that might prevent a man leaving descendants.” (Thompson)

C. Two laws commanding justice.

1. (13-16) God commands weights and measures be just.

“You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. You shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure, that your days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the LORD your God.

a. You shall not have in your bag different weights: God commanded that His people do business honestly. The use of different weights was to cheat either the buyer or the seller. The surrounding culture may believe that it doesn’t matter if money is made ethically or not, but God commands a perfect and just weight to be used in trade. This idea is repeated in passages such as Proverbs 11:1, 16:11, 20:23.

i. “There obviously was no sin in possessing these things per se, but their very possession would inevitably lead to their use in unscrupulous transactions.” (Merrill)

b. All who do such things…are an abomination to the LORD: This is a stronger stating of a command introduced in Leviticus 19:35-36. Stealing from others under the cover of doing business is a serious crime before God.

2. (17-19) God commands Israel to justly destroy Amalek.

“Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.

a. Remember what Amalek did: The Amalekites descended from Esau (Genesis 36:15-16, 1 Chronicles 1:36) and were a nomadic tribe that roamed the broader area of southern Canaan and its bordering lands. Amalek’s attack on Israel is recorded in Exodus 17. In response, Joshua led the armies of Israel in victory over the Amalekites as Moses prayed for Israel, assisted by the continual prayer of Aaron and Hur.

i. “Amalek’s failure to show mercy to the weak merited divine judgment, for God judged nations for crimes against natural law.” (Thompson)

b. Blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven: The nature of the Amalekite attack against Israel – focused on the stragglers and those who were tired and weary – made Amalek the permanent enemy of Israel, and Israel was to treat the Amalekites as they would the Canaanites, both being under the judgment of God.

i. Because of God’s strong command to battle against Amalek, many see Israel’s struggle with Amalek as a picture of the believer’s struggle with the flesh, which constantly battles against the spirit and must be struggled against until completely conquered (Galatians 5:17).

ii. “It is supposed that this command had its final accomplishment in the death of Haman and his ten sons, Esther 3, 7, 9, as from this time the memory and name of Amalek was blotted out from under heaven, for through every period of their history it might be truly said, They feared not God.” (Clarke)

c. When the LORD your God has given you rest: Israel was to carry out this war against the Amalekites later, when they were at rest in the land. Some 400 years later, God directed Saul to make war against the Amalekites, and his failure to destroy them was the primary act of disobedience which cost Saul the throne (1 Samuel 15:2-9; 28:18).

Pin3

3 Shares