Deuteronomy · Chapter 25

V. 1. Justify-Acquit him from guilt and false accusations, and free him from punishment.

Verse 1. They shall justify the righteous] This is a very important passage, and is a key to several others. The word qdx tsadak is used here precisely in the same sense in which St. Paul sometimes uses the corresponding word dikaiow, not to justify or make just, but to acquit, declare innocent, to remit punishment, or give reasons why such a one should not be punished; so here the magistrates wqydxh hitsdiku, shall acquit, the righteous-declare him innocent, because he is found to be righteous and not wicked: so the Septuagint: kai dikaiwsousin ton dikaion they shall make righteous the righteous-declare him free from blame, not liable to punishment, acquitted; using the same word with St. Paul when he speaks of a sinner’s justification, i.e., his acquittance from blame and punishment, because of the death of Christ in his stead.

Verse 1. If there be a controversy between men — Having made provision for the security of private right in some such remarkable cases as might be sufficient standards whereby to regulate all others, and having fixed punishments to the breach of the most capital laws, Moses now comes to such criminal matters as deserved only corporal penalties, and directs the inferior courts to be just and impartial in their proceedings upon all such complaints. They shall justify the righteous — Acquit him from guilt and false accusations, and free him from punishment. Condemn the wicked — Declare him guilty, and pass sentence of condemnation upon him to suitable punishment.

LAWS WITH REGARD TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, 1-3.

1. A controversy — In disputes between two men the court was to give the decision in favour of the one who was in the right. The guilty one was to be punished with stripes, which were to be in proportion to his guilt.

V. 2. Beaten-Which the Jews say was the case of all those crimes which the law commands to be punished, without expressing the kind or degree of punishment. Before his face-That the punishment may be duly inflicted, without excess or defect. And from this no person’s rank or quality exempted him, if he was a delinquent.

Verse 2. The judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face] This precept is literally followed in China; the culprit receives in the presence of the magistrate the punishment which the law directs to be inflicted. Thus then justice is done, for the magistrate sees that the letter of the law is duly fulfilled, and that the officers do not transgress it, either by indulgence on the one hand, or severity on the other. The culprit receives nothing more nor less than what justice requires.

Verse 2. Worthy to be beaten — Which the Jews say was the case of all those who had committed crimes which the law commands to be punished, without expressing the kind or degree of punishment. Before his face — That the punishment might be duly inflicted, without excess or defect. And from this no person’s rank or quality exempted him, if he were a delinquent.

2. The judge shall cause him to lie down — The punishment was inflicted on the back. This was the Egyptian method also, as can be seen from representations on the monuments. The culprit lies flat on the ground, being held fast by his hands and feet, and receiving his punishment in the presence of the judge.

V. 3. Forty stripes-It seems not superstition, but prudent caution, when the Jews would not exceed thirty-nine stripes, lest through mistake or forgetfulness they should go beyond their bounds, which they were commanded to keep. Should seem vile-Should be made contemptible to his brethren, either by this cruel usage of him, as if he were a brute beast: or by the deformity or infirmity of body which excessive beating might produce.

Verse 3. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed] According to God’s institution a criminal may receive forty stripes; not one more! But is the institution from above or not, that for any offence sentences a man to receive three hundred, yea, a thousand stripes? What horrible brutality is this! and what a reproach to human nature, and to the nation in which such shocking barbarities are exercised and tolerated! Most of the inhabitants of Great Britain have heard of Lord Macartney’s embassy to the emperor of China, and they have also heard of its complete failure; but they have not heard the cause. It appears to have been partly occasioned by the following circumstance: A soldier had been convicted of some petty traffic with one of the natives, and he was sentenced by a court-martial to receive sixty lashes! Hear my author:—

“The soldiers were drawn up in form in the outer court of the place where we resided; and the poor culprit, being fastened to one of the pillars of the great portico, received his punishment without mitigation. The abhorrence excited in the breasts of the Chinese at this cruel conduct, as it appeared to them, was demonstrably proved by their words and looks. They expressed their

astonishment that a people professing the mildest, the most benevolent religion on earth, as they wished to have it believed, could be guilty of such flagrant inattention to its merciful dictates. One of the principal Mandarins, who knew a little English, expressed the general sentiment, Englishmen too much cruel, too much bad.”-Accurate account of Lord Macartney’s Embassy to China, by an attendant on the embassy, l2mo., 1797, p. 88. The following is Mr. Ainsworth’s note on this verse: “This number forty the Scripture uses sundry times in cases of humiliation, affliction, and punishment. As Moses twice humbled himself in fasting and prayer forty days and forty nights, Deuteronomy 9:9, 18. Elijah fasted forty days, 1 Kings 19:8; and our Saviour, Matthew 4:2. Forty years Israel was afflicted in the wilderness for their sins, Numbers 14:33, 34. And forty years Egypt was desolate for treacherous dealing with Israel, Ezekiel 29:11-13. Forty days every woman was in purification for her uncleanness for a man-child that she bare, and twice forty days for a woman-child, Leviticus 12:4, 5. Forty days and forty nights it rained at Noah’s flood, Genesis 7:12. Forty days did Ezekiel bear the iniquity of the house of Judah, Ezekiel 4:6. Jonah preached, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown, Jonah 3:4. Forty years’ space the Canaanites had to repent after Israel came out of Egypt, and wandered so many years in the wilderness, Numbers 14:33. And thrice forty years the old world had Noah preaching unto them repentance, Genesis 6:3. It was forty days ere Christ ascended into heaven after his resurrection, Acts 1:3, 9. And forty years’ space he gave unto the Jews, from the time that they killed him, before he destroyed their city and temple by the Romans.

“By the Hebrews this law is expounded thus: How many stripes do they beat (an offender) with? With forty, lacking one: as it is written, (Deuteronomy 25:2, 3,) by number forty, that is, the number which is next to forty, Talmud Bab, in Maccoth, chap. iii. This their understanding is very ancient, for so they practised in the apostles’ days; as Paul testified: Of the Jews five times received I forty (stripes) save one; 2 Corinthians 11:24. But the reason which they give is not solid; as when they say, If it had been written FORTY IN NUMBER, I would say it were full forty; but being written IN NUMBER FORTY, it means the number which reckons forty next after it, that is, thirty-nine. By this exposition they confound the verses and take away the distinction. I rather think this custom was taken up by reason of the manner of their beating forespoken of, which was with a scourge that had three cords, so that every stroke was counted for three stripes, and then they could not give even forty, but either thirty-nine or forty-two, which was above the number set of God. And hereof they write thus: When they judge (or condemn) a sinner to so many (stripes) as he can bear, they judge not but by strokes that are fit to be trebled [that is, to give three stripes to one stroke, by reason of the three cords.] If they judge that he can bear twenty, they do not say he shall be beaten with one and twenty, to the end that they may treble the stripes, but they give him eighteen.-Maimon in Sanhedrin, chap. xvii., sec. 2. Thus he that was able to bear twenty stripes, had but eighteen: the executioner smote him but six times, for if he had smitten him the seventh they were counted one and twenty stripes, which was above the number adjudged: so he that was adjudged to forty was smitten thirteen times, which being counted one for three, make thirty-nine. And so R. Bechaios, writing hereof, says, The strokes are trebled; that is, every one is three, and three times thirteen are nine and thirty.”

Thy brother be vile, or be contemptible.-By this God teaches us to hate and despise the sin, not the sinner, who is by this chastisement to be amended; as the power which the Lord hath given is to edification, not to destruction, 2 Corinthians 13:10.

Verse 3. Forty stripes he may give him — The law of Moses very wisely limited the number of stripes, lest severe judges should order delinquents to be lashed to death, as was often done among the Romans, than which, perhaps, a more cruel kind of death can hardly be devised. And it seems not to have been superstition, but prudent caution, in the Jews, when they would not exceed thirty-nine stripes, lest, through mistake or forgetfulness, they should go beyond the bounds which they were commanded to keep. Thy brother should seem vile — Lest the judges, by exceeding the bounds of humanity, and that compassion which was due to a brother, a partaker of human nature in common with themselves, and one of the same nation and community, civil and religious, should be accustomed to think despicably of their poor brethren, and set their lives at naught. Or lest he should be made contemptible to his brethren, either by this cruel usage of him, as if he were a brute beast; or by some deformity or infirmity of body, which excessive beating might produce.

3. Forty stripes he may give — The rabbins fixed the number at forty save one, for fear of the letter of the law being transgressed. According to some authorities, as the scourge was made of three thongs, and each stroke was reckoned as three, in practice only thirteen blows were actually given.

V. 4. He treadeth out the corn-Which they did in those parts, either immediately by their hoofs on by drawing carts or other instruments over the corn. Hereby God taught them humanity, even to their beasts that served them, and much more to their servants or other men who laboured for them, especially to their ministers, 1 Corinthians 9:9.

Verse 4. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, &c.] In Judea, as well as in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, they make use of beeves to tread out the corn; and Dr. Shaw tells us that the people of Barbary continue to tread out their corn after the custom of the East. Instead of beeves they frequently made use of mules and horses, by tying by the neck three or four in like manner together, and whipping them afterwards round about the nedders, as they call the treading floors, (the Libycæ areæ Hor,) where the sheaves lie open and expanded, in the same manner as they are placed and prepared with us for threshing. This indeed is a much quicker way than ours, though less cleanly, for as it is performed in the open air, (Hosea 13:3,) upon any round level plot of ground, daubed over with cow’s dung to prevent as much as possible the earth, sand, or gravel from rising; a great quantity of them all, notwithstanding this precaution, must unavoidably be taken up with the grain, at the same time that the straw, which is their chief and only fodder, is hereby shattered to pieces; a circumstance very pertinently alluded to in 2 Kings 13:7, where the king of Syria is said to have made the Israelites like the dust by threshing.-Travels, p. 138. While the oxen were at work some muzzled their mouths to hinder them from eating the corn, which Moses here forbids, instructing the people by this symbolical precept to be kind to their servants and labourers, but especially to those who ministered to them in holy things; so St. Paul applies it 1 Corinthians 9:9, &c.; 1 Timothy 5:18. Leviticus Clerc considers the injunction as wholly symbolical; and perhaps in this view it was intended to confirm the laws enjoined in the fourteenth and fifteenth verses of the former chapter. See Dodd and Shaw.

In Bengal, where the same mode of treading cut the corn is used, some muzzle the ox, and others do not, according to the disposition of the farmer.-Ward.

Verse 4. When he treadeth out the corn — Which they did in those parts, either immediately by their hoofs, or by drawing carts or other instruments over the corn. Hereby God taught them humanity, even to their beasts that served them, and much more to their servants, or other men who laboured for them, especially to their ministers, 1 Corinthians 9:9.

4. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox — The ancient mode of threshing with oxen yoked together and driven over the sheaves of grain is still in use in the East. Those who muzzle the ox are looked upon as niggardly peasants. OF MARRIAGE WITH THE WIDOW OF A BROTHER WHO HAS DIED CHILDLESS, 5-10.

V. 5. Together-In the same town, or at least country. For if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, on were carried thither into captivity, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One-Any of them, for the words are general, and the reason of the law was to keep up the distinction of tribes and families, that so the Messiah might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed; and also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first-born having only a double portion. A stranger-To one of another family.

Verses 5, 6. If brethren dwell together — In the same town, or, at least, country. For if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One — Any of them, for the words are general, and the reason of the law was to keep up the distinction of tribes and families, that so the Messiah might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed; and also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the firstborn having only a double portion. A stranger — To one of another family. That his name be not put out — That a family be not lost. So this was a provision that the number of their families might not be diminished.

Verse 5. If brethren dwell together. Not in the same house, but near each other on the ancient lot of land which the family possessed; for Moses often speaks as though the people were already fixed in the promised land.

5. Her husband’s brother shall… take her — That is, if the married one died, leaving no child, the widow was not to be married to a stranger; her brother-in-law was to marry her. The custom was no doubt an old traditional one among the Israelites. Comp. Genesis 38:8. For an illustration see the case of Boaz and Ruth, Ruth 4.

V. 6. That his name be not put out-That a family be not lost. So this was a provision that the number of their families might not be diminished.

Verses 5, 6. If brethren dwell together — In the same town, or, at least, country. For if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One — Any of them, for the words are general, and the reason of the law was to keep up the distinction of tribes and families, that so the Messiah might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed; and also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the firstborn having only a double portion. A stranger — To one of another family. That his name be not put out — That a family be not lost. So this was a provision that the number of their families might not be diminished.

Ver. 7. If a man like not to take his brother’s wife. With regard to loosing the shoe, the Turks in divorce, allow a woman to turn up her slipper in presence of the court, a silent intimation that her husband has separated himself from her society. The loss of the shoe was a loss of moral rank; it classed a man with the poor, who often walked barefoot.

7. If the man like not — If the brother-in-law was unwilling to marry the widow of his deceased brother, then she was to bring the matter before the elders for their adjudication. For an illustration see the case of Boaz and Ruth, Ruth chapters 4 and 5.

V. 9. Loose his shoe-As a sign of his resignation of all his right to the woman, and to her husband’s inheritance: for as the shoe was a sign of one’s power and right, Psalm 60:8 108:9, so the parting with the shoe was a token of the alienation of such right; and as a note of infamy, to signify that by this disingenuous action he was unworthy to be amongst free-men, and fit to be reduced to the condition of the meanest servants, who used to go barefoot, Isaiah 20:2,4.

Verse 9. And loose his shoe] 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. And this is the way in which the Asiatics express their detestation of a person to the present day, as Niebuhr and other intelligent travellers assure us. It has been remarked that the prefix b beth is seldom applied to ynp peney; but when it is it signifies as well before as in the face. See Joshua 21:44; 23:9; Esther 9:2; and Ezekiel 42:12; which texts are supposed to be proofs in point. The act of spitting, whether in or before the face, marked the strong contempt the woman felt for the man who had slighted her. And it appears that the man was ever after disgraced in Israel; for so much is certainly implied in the saying, Deuteronomy 25:10: And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Verses 9, 10. Loose his shoe — As a sign of his resignation of all his right to the woman, and to her husband’s inheritance; for as the shoe was a sign of one’s power and right, (Psalm 60:8; 108:9,) so the parting with the shoe was a token of the alienation of such right; and as a note of infamy, to signify that by this disingenuous action he was unworthy to be among free men, and fit to be reduced to the condition of the meanest servants, who used to go barefoot, Isaiah 20:2, 4. His name — That is, his person, and his posterity also. So it was a lasting blot.

9. Loose his shoe from off his foot — Loosing the shoe and handing it to another denoted the transfer of a right. It arose from the custom of a person’s standing upon a piece of land he had bought when he took formal possession of it.

V. 10. His name-That is, his person, and his posterity also. So it was a lasting blot.

Verses 9, 10. Loose his shoe — As a sign of his resignation of all his right to the woman, and to her husband’s inheritance; for as the shoe was a sign of one’s power and right, (Psalm 60:8; 108:9,) so the parting with the shoe was a token of the alienation of such right; and as a note of infamy, to signify that by this disingenuous action he was unworthy to be among free men, and fit to be reduced to the condition of the meanest servants, who used to go barefoot, Isaiah 20:2, 4. His name — That is, his person, and his posterity also. So it was a lasting blot.

10. The house of him that hath his shoe loosed — That is, the house of the barefooted. The appellation denotes degradation.

Ver. 11. When two men strive, having first immodestly stripped themselves naked to fight.

11, 12. When men strive — According to Van Lennep (Bible Lands, p. 630, note) this is “explained by the fact that wrestlers are habitually on the alert to avail themselves of the chance to disable an antagonist by the means interdicted in this passage. The prohibition implies that the practice was common.”

11, 12. When men strive — According to Van Lennep (Bible Lands, p. 630, note) this is “explained by the fact that wrestlers are habitually on the alert to avail themselves of the chance to disable an antagonist by the means interdicted in this passage. The prohibition implies that the practice was common.”

V. 13. A great and a small-The great to buy with, the small for selling.

Verse 13. Divers weights] ואבנ אבנ eben vaaben, a stone and a stone, because the weights were anciently made of stone, and some had two sets of stones, a light and a heavy. With the latter they bought their wares, by the former they sold them. In our own country this was once a common case; smooth, round, or oval stones were generally chosen by the simple country people for selling their wares, especially such as were sold in pounds and half pounds. And hence the term a stone weight, which is still in use, though lead or iron be the matter that is used as a counterpoise: but the name itself shows us that a stone of a certain weight was the material formerly used as a weight. See the notes on Leviticus 19:35, 36.

Verse 13. Divers weights, great and small — The great to buy with, the small for selling. This law taught them to be so far from practising deceit, that they were not even to have the instruments of it by them. Would to God that there was no need to enforce the same law in our days!

THE DUTY OF UPRIGHT DEALING ENJOINED, 13-19.

13. Divers weights — The Hebrew reads, a stone and a stone. The use of stones for weights was common. On the subject of honesty in weights and measures see Leviticus 19:35, 36.

Verse 14. Divers measures] Literally, an ephah and an ephah; one large, to buy thy neighbour’s wares, another small, to sell thy own by. So there were knaves in all ages, and among all nations. See Clarke’s notes on “Exodus 16:16”, and See Clarke “Leviticus 19:35”.

14. Divers measures — An ephah and an ephah is the Hebrew. The prohibition is to condemn the having one kind of weight and measure for buying and another for selling.

15. That thy days may be lengthened — Comp. Exodus 20:12.

THE DUTY OF UPRIGHT DEALING ENJOINED, 13-19.

13. Divers weights — The Hebrew reads, a stone and a stone. The use of stones for weights was common. On the subject of honesty in weights and measures see Leviticus 19:35, 36.

V. 17. Out of Egypt-Which circumstance greatly aggravates their sin, that they should do thus to a people, who had been long exercised with sore afflictions, to whom pity was due by the laws of nature and humanity, and for whose rescue God had in so glorious a manner appeared, which they could not be ignorant of. So this was barbarousness to Israel, and setting the great Jehovah at defiance.

Verses 17, 18. Out of Egypt — Which circumstance greatly aggravated their sin, that they should do thus to a people who had been long exercised with sore afflictions, to whom pity was due by the laws of nature and humanity, and for whose rescue God had in so glorious a manner appeared, which they could not be ignorant of. And he feared not God — Though they feared Israel, whom they durst not look in the face, but cut them off behind, yet they feared not God, but acted a base and inhuman part, in contempt of the divine authority, and of all the miraculous interpositions of the divine providence in behalf of that chosen nation. So that while their conduct was barbarous to Israel, they set the great Jehovah at defiance.

17-19. Remember what Amalek did — Moses concludes this part of his discourse by reminding the people of the crafty enmity of the Amalekites. Comp. Exodus 17:8-16. Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek — This was partially done under Saul, (1 Samuel 15,) and more fully in Hezekiah’s reign. See 1 Chronicles 4:42, 43.

Verse 18. Smote the hindmost of thee] See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 17:8”. 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.

DEUTERONOMY

Verses 17, 18. Out of Egypt — Which circumstance greatly aggravated their sin, that they should do thus to a people who had been long exercised with sore afflictions, to whom pity was due by the laws of nature and humanity, and for whose rescue God had in so glorious a manner appeared, which they could not be ignorant of. And he feared not God — Though they feared Israel, whom they durst not look in the face, but cut them off behind, yet they feared not God, but acted a base and inhuman part, in contempt of the divine authority, and of all the miraculous interpositions of the divine providence in behalf of that chosen nation. So that while their conduct was barbarous to Israel, they set the great Jehovah at defiance.

17-19. Remember what Amalek did — Moses concludes this part of his discourse by reminding the people of the crafty enmity of the Amalekites. Comp. Exodus 17:8-16. Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek — This was partially done under Saul, (1 Samuel 15,) and more fully in Hezekiah’s reign. See 1 Chronicles 4:42, 43.

17-19. Remember what Amalek did — Moses concludes this part of his discourse by reminding the people of the crafty enmity of the Amalekites. Comp. Exodus 17:8-16. Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek — This was partially done under Saul, (1 Samuel 15,) and more fully in Hezekiah’s reign. See 1 Chronicles 4:42, 43.