1 Stripes must not exceed forty. 4 The ox is not to be muzzled. 5 Of raising seed unto a brother. 11 Of the immodest woman. 13 Of unjust weights. 17 The memory of Amalek is to be blotted out.
Deu 25:1 When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.
A dispute leading to litigation, as is plain from what follows. The word thus translated is from the root “to agitate,” “to quarrel noisily,” “to shout” (see Gen. 26:22; Job 9:3; Prov. 25:9).
The noun form, as used here, appears also in Gen. 13:7; Job 31:13. Unto judgment. “to court”, the place of judgment (1 Kings 7:7; Isa. 28:6). The word “judgment” also refers to the process or procedure of justice in the courts (Job 14:3; Eccl. 11:9; 12:14).
Finally, it is used of the decision or “judgment” handed down by a judge after hearing a case (Mal. 2:17). Acquitting the innocent. Literally, “cause to be righteous the righteous one.”
The one falsely accused was to be exonerated and acquitted. The word here translated “righteous” is also used of the righteousness of the justified sinner before God.
Here it is used in the legal sense of pronouncing a man not guilty (see Ex. 22:9; 2 Sam. 15:4; Ps. 94:21; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23). Courts were established by God’s own direction.
Condemning the wicked.
The words here translated “condemn” and “wicked” are from the same root. Literally, the expression would read, “to cause to be regulated the abnormal [unregulated] ones.”
The related Arabic root means “to be loose” (of the limbs), and therefore “ill regulated” or “out of joint.” An endeavor was to be made to rehabilitate and regulate, rather than to punish in the sense of vengeance.
Deu 25:2 If the guilty person deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make them lie down and have them flogged in his presence with the number of lashes the crime deserves,
Lie down. He was made to lie down and given the number of blows prescribed by the judge.
Corporal punishment was usually administered by a stick (2 Sam. 7:14), though sometimes with thorn branches (Judges 8:7, 16), and sometimes with scourges or whips (1 Kings 12:11, 14).
Deu 25:3 but the judge must not impose more than forty lashes. If the guilty party is flogged more than that, your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes.
Forty lashes. Compare the experience of Paul (2 Cor. 11:24). Later the Jews fixed the number at 39, lest inadvertently more than 40 should be given.
Degraded. Unduly severe punishment would lead to resentment and the feeling that the man had been unjustly treated. One stroke beyond 40 would be considered unjust.
When the punishment was inflicted in the synagogue, it was the custom to read such passages as Deut. 28:58, 59 during the flogging, and in the presence of witnesses.
Deu 25:4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.
From ancient times it was the custom to use oxen for treading out grain. In India today it is the usual thing to muzzle the animals. The treading out of the grain is often painful to the feet of the oxen, and it is not unusual for them to go lame as a result, especially if overworked at the task.
This Mosaic precept not only protected the “ox” from cruel treatment but was designed to inculcate tender-heartedness—a trait that was not common among the heathen.
Note the sentiments expressed in Prov. 12:10 on this very point. The apostle Paul referred to Deut. 25:4 as evidence that the ministry should receive a proper and adequate wage, in harmony with the sacred dignity of their office (see 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Matt. 10:10). Faithful service, whether of men or of animals, deserves generous recognition.
Deu 25:5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.
The duty of an husband’s brother.
The purpose of such a marriage was to provide a successor to the deceased (see on Gen. 38:8; Matt. 22:25). The first son born to such a union, commonly called a levirate marriage, was to become the heir of the deceased brother, to perpetuate his name and estate.
A brother who refused to carry out this duty was held in public disgrace. This custom was common among many ancient nations, with variations, and survived into modern times among descendants of some of the earlier peoples of India.
The best-known Biblical example of the operation of the principle of levirate marriage is that of Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 1:22; 2:1 to 4:17).
Deu 25:6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
Men in all ages have valued perpetuation of the family name. This remains true in Oriental countries today, where no greater calamity can come to a man than to die without a male heir.
Deu 25:7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.”
On the authority of the elders at the gate, see Deut. 21:19; 22:15; Ruth 4:1. The law did not require the brother to marry the widow if he felt that he could not love her. But in case he refused to marry her, she could enter a formal complaint against him.
Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,
The “elders” were the responsible city leaders to deal with him. They were no doubt fully acquainted with his circumstances and in a position to secure further information about the case.
The “elders,” literally “elderly men,” were held in great respect, and exercised considerable authority.
Deu 25:9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.”
Jewish tradition indicates the shoe of the right foot. The deed here described was regarded as an act of indignity, since failure to comply with the levirate law (see on v. 5) was looked upon as a mark of selfishness (see Ruth 4:6).
The placing of the shod foot on property proclaimed either one’s contempt for it or one’s rightful ownership over it (Ps. 60:8; 108:9). Accordingly, the removal of the man’s shoe by his brother’s widow proclaimed the man’s unworthiness.
He refused to do what was rightfully to be expected of him. Compare S. of Sol. 7:1 for the figure of the sandaled foot as a picture of beauty and desirableness. To go unshod was looked upon as degrading (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2, 4) or as a token of humility (Ex. 3:5; Joshua 5:15).
Spit in his face. Jewish commentators usually interpret this as spitting on the ground “before his face.” This seems reasonable, because the preposition is not “upon,” but “by” or “before” (Deut. 11:25; Joshua 10:8).
Spitting before the face was thought to be humiliating (Num. 12:14). This verb appears three times in the Hebrew Bible.
This is what is done. The only exceptions were the high priest, who was not subject to the levirate law (Lev. 21:13, 14), brothers living at a distance, and the aged.
Deu 25:10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unhandled.
Deu 25:11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts,
In Ex. 21:22 is recorded the case of men quarreling, and the compensation to be given to a pregnant woman injured because of a fight between the men. In this case, legal protection is afforded the man. Some commentators have suggested that this refers to the widow of vs. 5–10 taking hold of her brother-in-law to force him into marriage with her.
If such be the application, this law would forbid the woman passing beyond the bounds of decency. However, the context makes it clear that this was a personal quarrel in which the wife of one of the men endeavored to help her husband.
The word here translated “quarelling” might better be translated “wrestle.” It is rendered variously in Ex. 2:13; 21:22; Lev. 24:10; 2 Sam. 14:6.
Deu 25:12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
This was not to be done by the man she grasped, for he would be incapacitated, perhaps permanently injured. He would bring his complaint before the judges. This law is derived from the principle stated in Ex. 21:24. Some Jewish commentators reject the idea that this was to be taken literally. The rabbis later changed the sentence to one of heavy fine.
Deu 25:13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. lighter weight used in selling and a larger one in purchasing. Literally, “a stone and a stone, large and small.” Ancient Hebrew weights were usually made of stone.
Amos 8:5 indicates that this dishonesty was not uncommon among the Jews. Note the statement about different weights in Prov. 20:23, as an “abomination” to God, whereas just weights are approved by the Lord (Prov. 16:11). The prophet Micah makes a similar statement on God’s displeasure with unjust weights (Micah 6:11).
God designs that among His people principles of justice and equity shall prevail. Those who serve God will not cheat their fellow men (see 1 John 4:20).
Deu 25:14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small.
Deu 25:15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
The tendency to indulge the temptation to make easy profits is not always easily eliminated in business dealings. We speak of honesty as being the best policy. Yet the policy followed by some businessmen is as cruel as that of tooth and claw in the jungle.
It must be admitted that such dealings have often brought men enormous riches, and even high repute in society. Yet without honesty there can never be peace of mind and a clear conscience before God.
Deu 25:16 For the LORD your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
Deu 25:17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt.
Amalek. The reference here is to the hostility of the Amalekites toward Israel on their journey from Egypt (Ex. 17:8–16). It is true that at the time of the writing of the book of Deuteronomy the Amalekites were no longer a threat to Israel.
Yet God did not forget the injury they had done to His people.
Deu 25:18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.
Reflecting cowardice and cruelty (see Ex. 17:8–13). He feared not God.
This was the reason for his evil conduct. Indifference to right principles can scarcely provide a solid foundation upon which to build kindness and love for one’s neighbors.
Deu 25:19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!
The Lord is a God of love and righteousness. The command to wipe out the Amalekites as a nation was first addressed to Joshua (Ex. 17:14), but the actual work of judgment upon this people, which had filled up its cup of iniquity, was carried out in stages.
Barak and Gideon (Judges 5:14; 6:3; 7:12), Saul and Samuel (1 Sam. 15:1–9), and David (1 Sam. 27:8, 9; 30:1, 17), all participated in executing the decree against them. Finally came the children of Simeon, who completed the task (1 /Chron. 4:42, 43).