DEUTERO�OMY 25 COMME�TARYEDITED BY GLE�� PEASE

1 When men have a dispute, they are to take it to

court and the judges will decide the case,

acquitting the innocent and condemning the

guilty.

1. Barnes, He quotes these verses to show how serious a matter this is with God. Pro 17:15 “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” Exo 23:7 “Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.”

2. Clarke, “They shall justify the righteous - This is a very important passage, and

is a key to several others. The word צדק tsadak is used here precisely in the same sense in

which St. Paul sometimes uses the corresponding word δικαιοω, 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 הצדיקו hitsdiku, shall acquit, the righteous - declare him innocent, because he is found to be righteous and not wicked: so

the Septuagint: και�δικαιωσουσιν�τον�δικαιον 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.”

3. Gill, “If there be a controversy between men,.... Between two or more:

and they come unto judgment; into a court of judicature, bring their cause thither:

that the judges may judge them; who were never less than three; the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem consisted of seventy one, the lesser court was of twenty three, and the least of all three only:

then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked: acquit the one, whose cause is good, and condemn the other to punishment, who is guilty of a crime, and as that deserves; which is to do righteous judgment; the contrary to this is an abomination to the Lord,

4. Henry, “Here is, I. A direction to the judges in scourging malefactors, Deu_25:1-3. 1. It is here supposed that, if a man be charged with a crime, the accuser and the accused (Actor and Reus) should be brought face to face before the judges, that the controversy may be determined. 2. If a man were accused of a crime, and the proof fell short, so that the charge could not be made out against him by the evidence, then he was to be acquitted: “Thou shalt justify the righteous,” that is, “him that appears to the court to be so.” If the accusation be proved, then the conviction of the accused is a justification of the accuser, as righteous in the prosecution.”

5. PULPIT COMM, “This passage is an interesting illustration of the restraints

which the Law of Moses puts on the Hebrews, as to the semi-barbarous customs of

other nations. It is well known that punishment by bastinado was common among

the ancient Egyptians. It would be not unnaturally adopted by the Hebrews. There

are here three matters to be noticed.

1. Here is a principle to be recognized (Deuteronomy 25:1).

2. The punishment

3. The reason given is very impressive, "lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee,"

i.e. lest he should be so excessively punished as to be afterwards unfit for service,

and lest he should be the common butt of any one who chose to dishonor him.

Human nature is to be respected, even in carrying out legal sentences on crime.

Trapp says, "The Turks, when cruelly lashed, are compelled to return to the judge

that commanded it, to kiss his hand, to give him thanks, and to pay the officer that

whipped them!

I. The sight of a human being coming under the sentence of criminal law is matter

for intense sadness.

II. The punishment to be inflicted on him should be such in matter and degree as to

assert right principle, but not such as needlessly to dishonor him. For—

III. Humanity, in spite of crime, has dignity about it still. Sin and the sinner are not

inseparable. God can kill one and save the other!

IV. With a view to a criminal's salvation, whatever of honor remains in his nature

should be carefully guarded and tenderly appealed to.

6. K&D, “Corporal Punishment. - The rule respecting the corporal punishment to be

inflicted upon a guilty man is introduced in Deu_25:1 with the general law, that in a dispute between two men the court was to give right to the man who was right, and to pronounce the guilty man guilty (cf. Exo_22:8 and Exo_23:7).

7. Calvin, “Inasmuch as moderation and humanity are here enjoined, it is a

Supplement of the Sixth Commandment. The sum is, that, if any one is judicially

condemned to be beaten with stripes, the chastisement should not be excessive. The

question, however, is as to a punishment, which by lawyers is called a moderate

correction, (43) and which ought to be such, as that the body torn by the whip

should not be maimed or disfigured. Since, therefore, God has so far spared the

guilty, as to repress even just severity, much more would He have regard paid to

innocent blood; and since He prohibits the judge from using too great rigor, much

less will He tolerate the violence of a private individual, if he shall employ it against

his brother. But it was necessary that zeal should be thus restrained, because judges,

in other respects not unjust, are often as severe against lesser offenses (delicta) as

against crimes. An equal measure of punishment is not indeed prescribed, as if all

were to be beaten alike; it is only prohibited that the judges should order more than

forty stripes in all to be inflicted for an offense. Thus the culprits were beaten

deliberately, and not in such an indiscriminate manner as when it was not requisite

to count the stripes; besides, they were not so injured for the future as to be

deprived of the use of any of their limbs. With the same intent God would have the

judges themselves to be present, that by their authority they may prevent any

excess: and the reason is added, lest “thy brother should seem vile unto thee,”

because he had been beaten immoderately. This may be explained in two ways,

either, lest his body should be disfigured by the blows, and so he should be rendered

unsightly; or, lest, being stained for ever with ignominy and disgrace, he should be

discouraged in mind; for we know how grievous and bitter it is to be mocked and

insulted. A third sense, (44) which some prefer, is too far-fetched, viz., lest he should

die like some vile and contemptible beast; for God only provides that the wretched

man should be improved by his chastisement, and not that he should grow callous

from his infamy. As the Jews were always ostentatious of their zeal in trifling

matters, they invented a childish precaution, in order that they might more strictly

observe this law; for they were scrupulous in not proceeding to the fortieth stripe,

but, by deducting one, they sought after an empty reputation for clemency, as if they

were wiser than God Himself, and superior to Him in kindness. Into such folly do

men fall, when they dare out of their own heads to invent anything in opposition to

God’s word! This superstition already prevailed in Paul’s time, as we gather from

his words, where he reports that “five times he received forty stripes save one.” (2

Corinthians 11:24.)

8. PULPIT COMMENTARY, "The first and second verses should be read as one

sentence, of which the protasis is in Deuteronomy 25:1 and the apodosis in Deuteronomy

25:2, thus: If there be a strife between men, and they come to judgment, and they (i.e. the

judges) give judgment on them, and justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked, then

it shall be, if the wicked deserve to be beaten (literally, be the son of blows), that the

judge, etc. It is assumed that the judges shall pronounce just judgment, and apportion to

the guilty party his due punishment; and then it is prescribed how that is to be inflicted. In

the presence of the judge the man was to be cast down, and the adjudged number of

blows were to be given him, not, however, exceeding forty, lest the man should be

rendered contemptible in the eyes of the people, as if he were a mere slave or brute. This

punishment was usually inflicted with a stick (Exodus 21:10; 2 Samuel 7:14, etc.), as is

still the case among the Arabs and Egyptians; sometimes also with thorns ( 8:7, 8:16);

sometimes with whips and scorpions, i.e. scourges of cord or leather armed with sharp

points or hard knots (1 Kings 12:11, 1 Kings 12:14). Though the culprit was laid on the

ground, it does not appear that the bastinado was used among the Jews as it is now among

the Arabs; the back and shoulders were the parts of the body on which the blows fell

(Proverbs 10:13; Proverbs 19:29; Proverbs 26:3; Isaiah 1:6). According to his fault, by a

certain number; literally, according to the requirement of his crime in number; i.e.

according as his crime deserved. The number was fixed at forty, probably because of the

symbolical significance of that number as a measure of completeness. The rabbins fixed

the number at thirty-nine, apparently in order that the danger of exceeding the number

prescribed by the Law should be diminished (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:24); but another reason

is assigned by Maimonides, viz. that, as the instrument of punishment was a scourge with

three tails, each stroke counted for three, and thus they could not give forty, but only

thirty-nine, unless they exceeded the forty (Maimon; 'In Sanhedrin,' 17.2).

HOMILIES BY J. ORR

Deuteronomy 25:1-3

The bastinado.

Professor W. R. Smith regards this law of stripes as indicating a late date for

Deuteronomy. He argues from the customs of the free Bedouins. But it is perilous to

reason from the customs of the Bedouins to the punishments in vogue among a people

who had lived some centuries in Egypt, where, as is well-known, the bastinado was in

constant use. The sculptures at Beni-Hassan represent the very scene here described. We

learn—

I. THAT IT IS THE FUNCTION OF CIVIL MAGISTRATES TO PUNISH CRIME.

(Verses 1, 2.) They bear the sword for this purpose (Romans 14:4; 1 Peter 2:14). The

modern humanitarian spirit tends to exalt the reformatory and preventive ends of

punishment, at the expense of the retributive. That every effort should be put forth for the

reformation of the criminal which the case admits of, we cordially allow. But the danger

is, in these matters, that sentiment degenerate into sentimentalism. Crime deserves

punishment, and on that ground alone, were there no other, ought to receive it. No theory

can be satisfactory which loses sight of retribution, and makes reformation and prevention

the all in all.

II. THAT PENALTIES OUGHT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY SEVERE. (Verse 2.) To be

effective in early stages of civilization, penalties must be severe, prompt, and specific

enough to be vividly conceived (cf. H. Spencer's 'Essays:' 'Prison Ethics'). The progress of

society admits of the substitution of punishments appealing to a higher class of

sensibilities. But even these ought adequately to express the measure of the criminal's

desert. If Mr. Spencer were right, the slightest restraint compatible with the safety of the

community, combined with compulsory self-support, would be punishment sufficient for

the greatest crimes. The sense of justice in mankind rejects such ideas. Carlyle's teaching

in 'Model Prisons' is healthier than this.

III. THAT PENALTIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED. (Verse 3.) It is difficult to

believe that in our own country, at the beginning of this century, the theft of five shillings

from the person was a crime punishable by death. Yet the statute-book bristled with

enactments, of which, unhappily, this was not the worst. Such outrageous disproportion

between crime and punishment must have robbed the law's sentences of most of their

moral effect. Anomalies exist still, which it would be to any statesman's credit to

endeavor to remove.

IV. THAT PENALTIES SHOULD NOT BE UNDULY DEGRADING, (Vet, 3.) Lest

"thy brother should seem vile unto thee." The effect of excessive severity is to harden,

degrade, dehumanize. It often drives the criminal to desperation. As a victim of the older

criminal code expressed it, "A man's heart is taken from him, and there is given to him

the heart of a beast." The tendency in modern feeling is toward the abolition of corporal

punishments entirely, as degrading alike to him who administers them, and to those by

whom they are endured.

Observe:

1. The profound idea on which the law rested. The body, part of human nature, and

sharing its dignity as made in God's image.

2. The best laws may be unjustly and cruelly administered (2 Corinthians 11:24, 2

Corinthians 11:25).—J.O.

HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES

Deuteronomy 25:1-3

Earthly magistracy an argument for the heavenly.

It is not conceivable that God should have taken such pains, through Moses, to secure

pure administration of justice in earthly courts, unless he had established a like court of

judicature in heaven. So far as the will of God is embodied in the judicial procedure on

earth, it is copied from the pattern of heavenly things.

I. A JUDICIAL COURT IS CREATED FOR THE DISCRIMINATION OF HUMAN

CHARACTER. The purpose of all examination and testimony is to separate the evil from

the good—to bring to light the righteousness and the wickedness of men. Justice delights

more in vindicating and commending the righteous than in censuring and condemning the

wicked. Justice found a nobler occupation in marshalling Mordecai through the city, and

proclaiming his innocence, than in erecting the gallows for the execution of Haman.

Human judges, however, can discern only what is palpable and conspicuous. They have

not an organ of insight delicate enough to detect the lesser excellences and blemishes; nor

can they penetrate into the interior nature of man. These institutions are only the shadows

of heavenly things. But every man stands before the tribunal of a higher Judge, where not

only actions, but motives, intentions, and feelings, are examined and weighed. Here,

without the possibility of mistake, the righteous are justified, the wicked are condemned.

Discrimination is perfect: separation will be complete.

II. A JUDICIAL COURT IS ORDAINED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF EVIL DEEDS.

1. The true punishment is measured by the scale of demerit. It is enjoined to be

"according to his fault." In God's sagacious judgment, every degree of blameworthiness is

noted. Nothing appertaining to moral conduct is beneath the notice of God's eye. We

value far too little moral qualities. As we grow like God, we shall gain in that penetrative

power which discerns the beauty of goodness and the blackness of iniquity.

2. Punishment is a loss of manliness. "The judge shall cause him to lie down." His dignity

shall be prostrate. Sin robs us of manliness, but the loss does not come into public view

until punishment follows. To be righteous throughout is to be a man.

3. Punishment is to be public. The culprit is "to be beaten before the judge's face." This

publicity is part of the penalty. It is summary—to be inflicted at once. And publicity is

also a safeguard against cruelty and against excess. So God invites public recognition and

public approval of his doings. The ransomed universe shall unite in the testimony, "Just

and true are thy ways, thou King of saints."

III. A JUDICIAL COURT REVEALS THE VALUE OF A HUMAN LIFE. The penalties

were to be moderate, "lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee." The first ends of

punishment are the reformation and improvement of the offender. If it is possible to teach

the culprit the value of himself, and inspire him with a hatred of sin, we have done him

unspeakable good. We do not spend so much in cutting and polishing a common stone as

we do a ruby or a sapphire. Let our treatment of men be as if we esteemed them the

jewels of God.—D.

2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the

judge shall make him lie down and have him

flogged in his presence with the number of lashes

his crime deserves,

1. Barnes, “Scourging is named as a penalty in Lev_19:20. The beating here spoken of would be on the back with a rod or stick (compare Pro_10:13; Pro_19:29; Pro_26:3).

2. Clarke, “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.

3. Gill, “ “If the accused were found guilty, judgment must be given against him: “Thou shalt condThere were four kinds of death criminals were put to by the Jews, stoning, strangling, burning, and slaying with the sword; and such crimes not as severe as these were punished with beating or scourging; and who they were that were worthy to be beaten is at large set forth in the Misnic treatise called Maccoth (x), or "stripes", which are too many to be transcribed. Maimonides says (y), that all negative precepts in the law, for the breach of which men are guilty of cutting off, but not of death by the sanhedrim, are to be beaten. They are in all twenty one, and so all deserving of death by the hand of heaven; and they are eighteen, and all negative precepts of the law broken, for which there is neither cutting off nor death by a court of judicature, for these men are to be beaten, and they are one hundred and sixty eight; and all that are to be beaten are found to be two hundred and seven:

that the judge shall cause him to lie down; which seems to be on the floor of the court, since it was to be done immediately, and in the presence of the judge; and the Jews gather (z) from hence, that he was to be beaten neither standing, nor sitting, but bowed; that is, ye shall command or order him to lie down, or to fall upon the ground

with his face towards it:

and to be beaten before his face; in the presence of the judge, that the sentence might be properly executed, neither exceeded not diminished; and indeed all the judges were to be present, especially the bench of three; while he was beating, the chief of the judges read the passage in Deu_28:58; and he that was next to him counted the strokes, and the third at every blow said Smite (a): of the manner of beating or scourging; see Gill on Mat_10:17,

according to his fault, by a certain number; as his crime and wickedness was more or less heinous, more or fewer stripes were to be laid on him; as ten or twenty, fewer or more, according to the nature of his offence, as Aben Ezra observes, only he might not add above forty; though he says there are some who say that according to his fault the stripes are larger or lesser, but all of them in number forty. emn the wicked;” for to justify the wicked is as much an abomination to the Lord as it is to condemn the righteous, Pro_17:15. 4. If the crime were not made capital by the law, then the criminal must be beaten. A great many precepts we have met with which have not any particular penalty annexed to them, the violation of most of which, according to the constant practice of the Jews, was punished by scourging, from which no person's rank or quality did exempt him if he were a delinquent, but with this proviso, that he should never be upbraided with it, nor should it be looked upon as leaving any mark of infamy or disgrace upon him.

4. Henry, “If the accusation be proved, then the conviction of the accused is a justification of the accuser, as righteous in the prosecution. 3. If the accused were found guilty, judgment must be given against him: “Thou shalt condemn the wicked;” for to justify the wicked is as much an abomination to the Lord as it is to condemn the righteous, Pro_17:15. 4. If the crime were not made capital by the law, then the criminal must be beaten. A great many precepts we have met with which have not any particular penalty annexed to them, the violation of most of which, according to the constant practice of the Jews, was punished by scourging, from which no person's rank or quality did exempt him if he were a delinquent, but with this proviso, that he should never be upbraided with it, nor should it be looked upon as leaving any mark of infamy or disgrace upon him.

5. Jamison, “if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten— In judicial sentences, which awarded punishment short of capital, scourging, like the Egyptian bastinado, was the most common form in which they were executed. The Mosaic law, however, introduced two important restrictions; namely: (1) The punishment should be inflicted in presence of the judge instead of being inflicted in private by some heartless official; and (2) The maximum amount of it should be limited to forty stripes, instead of being awarded according to the arbitrary will or passion of the magistrate. The Egyptian, like Turkish and Chinese rulers, often applied the stick till they caused death or lameness for life. Of what the scourge consisted at first we are not informed; but in later times, when the Jews were exceedingly scrupulous in adhering to the letter of the law and, for fear of miscalculation, were desirous of keeping within the prescribed limit, it was formed of three cords, terminating in leathern thongs, and thirteen strokes of this counted as

thirty-nine stripes (2Co_11:24).

6. K&D, “If the guilty man was sentenced to stripes, he was to receive his punishment in the presence of the judge, and not more than forty stripes, that he might not become

contemptible in the eyes of the people. ּות�ִ ן ַה ,�son�of�stripes,�i.e.,�a�man�liable�to�stripes,�like�

son�(child)�of�death,�in�1Sa_20:31.�“According�to�the�need�of�his�crime�in�number,”�i.e.,�as�many�

stripes�as�his�crime�deserved.

7. DAVE GUZIK, “They justify the righteous and condemn the guilty: This is the simple

responsibility of all government and courts. As Paul describes the role of government in Romans 13:4: For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

b. If the wicked man deserves to be beaten: Apparently, God considers that some criminals are

wicked and deserve to be beaten. We seem to have a justice system today that considers itself more compassionate and kind than God Himself, yet we can't say that we live in a more just or safe society. Maybe God does know best!

i. "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)

c. Yet, though sometimes a beating was the appropriate punishment, Forty blows may he give

him and no more. God agrees with the idea that there is a such thing as excessive punishment, and this was intended to prevent excessive punishment. Additionally, the beating was to be

administered in the presence of the judge (an be beaten in his presence), so he could make sure the punishment was not excessive.

i. In 2 Corinthians 11:24, Paul lists 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. Why did they only beat him with thirty-nine blows if they could have used forty, according to Deuteronomy 25:3? Because as a common practice, the Jews would only allow thirty-nine blows to be administered, to both show mercy, and to scrupulously keep the law - one blow was left off to protect against a miscount.

3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes.

If he is flogged more than that, your brother will

be degraded in your eyes.

1. Barnes, “The Jews to keep within the letter of the law fixed 39 stripes as the maximum (compare the marginal reference.). Forty signifies the full measure of judgment (compare Gen_7:12; Num_14:33-34); but the son of Israel was not to be

lashed like a slave at the mercy of another. The judge was always to be present to see that the Law in this particular was not overpassed.

2. Clarke, “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 offense 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, 12mo., 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, Deu_9:9, Deu_9:18. Elijah fasted forty days, 1Ki_19:8; and our Savior, Mat_4:2. Forty years Israel was afflicted in the wilderness for their sins, Num_14:33, Num_14:34. And forty years Egypt was desolate for treacherous dealing with Israel, Eze_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, Lev_12:4, Lev_12:5. Forty days and forty nights it rained at Noah’s flood, Gen_7:12. Forty days did Ezekiel bear the iniquity of the house of Judah, Eze_4:6. Jonah preached, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown, Jon_3:4. Forty years’ space the Canaanites had to repent after Israel came out of Egypt, and wandered so many years in the wilderness, Num_14:33. And thrice forty years the old world had Noah preaching unto them repentance, Gen_6:3. It was forty days ere Christ ascended into heaven after his resurrection, Act_1:3, Act_1:9. 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, (Deu_25:2, Deu_25:3), by number forty, that is, the number which is next to forty, Talmud Bab, in Maccoth, chap. 3. This their understanding is very ancient, for so they practiced in the apostles’ days; as Paul testified: Of the Jews five times received I forty (stripes) save one; 2Co_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, 2Co_13:10.

3. Gill, “ And that this number might not be exceeded, it is ordered by the Jewish canons that only thirty nine should be given; for it is asked (b),"with how many stripes do they beat him? with forty, save one, as it is said, in number "forty" that is, in the number which is next to forty;''this they make out by joining the last word of Deu_25:2with the first of this; and that this was an ancient sense of the law, and custom upon it, appears by the execution of it on the Apostle Paul; who was not indulged, but suffered the extremity of it as it was then understood; see Gill on 2Co_11:24; moreover, that they might not exceed this number, they used to make a scourge of three lashes, so that every strike they fetched with it was reckoned for three stripes, and thirteen of them made thirty nine; wherefore if they added another stroke, it would have exceeded the number of stripes by two:

lest if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes; they might diminish them, if a man was weak, and not able to bear them; but they might not exceed them, if a man was as strong as Samson, as Maimonides (c) says:

then thy brother should seem vile unto thee; as if he was a beast, and not a man, and much less a brother. The Targum of Jonathan is,"lest he be in danger, and thy brother be vile;''lest he be in danger of his life, and become vile, as a dead carcass; so the apostle calls dead bodies "vile bodies", Phi_3:21; or in danger of being maimed, and becoming lame or deformed, and so be contemptible: and this punishment of beating with the Jews was not reckoned, according to their writers, reproachful, and as fixing a brand of infamy upon a person; but they were still reckoned brethren, and restored to their former dignities, whatsoever they possessed; so Maimonides (d) says,"whoever commits a crime, and is beaten, he returns to his dignity, as it is said, "lest thy brother be vile in thine eyes"; when he is beaten, lo, he is thy brother; an high priest, that commits a crime, is beaten by three (i.e. a bench of three judges, by their order), as the rest of all the people, and he returns to his grandeur; but the head of the session (or court of judicature), that commits a crime, they beat him, but he does not return to his principality, nor even return to be as one of the rest of the sanhedrim; for they ascend in

holiness, but do not descend.''And yet Josephus represents it as a most infamous and scandalous punishment, as one would think indeed it should be; his words are (e), speaking of the laws concerning travellers being allowed to gather grapes, and pluck ears of corn as they passed;"he that does contrary to these laws receives forty stripes, save one, with a public scourge; a free man undergoes this most filthy (or disgraceful) punishment, because for the sake of gain he reproaches his dignity.''

4. Henry, “The directions here given for the scourging of criminals are, (1.) That it be done solemnly; not tumultuously through the streets, but in open court before the judge's face, and with so much deliberation as that the stripes might be numbered. The Jews say that while execution was in doing the chief justice of the court read with a loud voice Deu_28:58, Deu_28:59, and Deu_29:9, and concluded with those words (Psa_78:38), But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity. Thus it was made a sort of religious act, and so much the more likely to reform the offender himself and to be a warning to others. (2.) That it be done in proportion to the crime, according to his fault,that some crimes might appear, as they are, more heinous than others, the criminal being beaten with many stripes, to which perhaps there is an allusion, Luk_12:47, Luk_12:48. (3.) That how great soever the crime were the number of stripes should never exceed forty, Deu_25:3. Forty save one was the common usage, as appears, 2Co_11:24. It seems, they always gave Paul as many stripes as ever they gave to any malefactor whatsoever. They abated one for fear of having miscounted (though one of the judges was appointed to number the stripes), or because they would never go to the utmost rigour, or because the execution was usually done with a whip of three lashes, so that thirteen stripes (each one being counted for three) made up thirty-nine, but one more by that reckoning would have been forty-two. The reason given for this is, lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee. He must still be looked upon as a brother (2Th_3:15), and his reputation as such was preserved by this merciful limitation of his punishment. It saves him from seeming vile to his brethren, when God himself by his law takes this care of him. Men must not be treated as dogs; nor must those seem vile in our sight to whom, for aught we know, God may yet give grace to make them precious in his sight.

5. K&D, ““Forty shall ye beat him, and not add,” i.e., at most forty stripes, and not more. The strokes were administered with a stick upon the back (Pro_10:13; Pro_19:29; Pro_26:3, etc.). This was the Egyptian mode of whipping, as we may see depicted upon the monuments, when the culprits lie flat upon the ground, and being held fast by the hands and feet, receive their strokes in the presence of the judge (vid., Wilkinson, ii. p. 11, and Rosellini, ii. 3, p. 274, 78). The number forty was not to be exceeded, because a larger number of strokes with a stick would not only endanger health and life, but disgrace the man: “that thy brother do not become contemptible in thine eyes.” If he had deserved a severer punishment, he was to be executed. In Turkey the punishments inflicted are much more severe, viz., from fifty to a hundred lashes with a whip; and they are at the same time inhuman (see v. Tornauw, Moslem. Recht, p. 234). The number, forty, was probably chosen with reference to its symbolical significance, which it had derived from Gen_7:12 onwards, as the full measure of judgment. The Rabbins fixed the number at forty save one (vid., 2Co_11:24), from a scrupulous fear of transgressing the letter of the law, in case a mistake should be made in the counting; yet they felt no conscientious scruples about using a whip of twisted thongs instead of a stick

6. RICH CATHERS, “The Jews actually would only give out 39 lashes, not because they were merciful, but in order to make sure they didn’t break the Law of Moses. Just in case someone miscounted, they were cautious not to

break this law. Paul knew all about it.

•••• (2 Cor 11:23-24 KJV) Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. {24} Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the

grain.

1. Barnes, “Compare the marginal references. In other kinds of labor the oxen were usually muzzled. When driven to and fro over the threshing-floor in order to stamp out the grain from the chaff, they were to be allowed to partake of the fruits of their labors.

1B. 1 Corinthians 9:9

9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “a You shall not muzzle the ox while he is

threshing.” God is not concerned about boxen, is He?

1 Timothy 5:18

18 For the Scripture says, “a You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and

“bThe laborer is worthy of his wages.”

2. Clarke, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, etc. - 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 Libycae areae 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, (Hos_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 2Ki_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 laborers, but especially to those who ministered to them in holy things; so St. Paul applies it 1Co_9:9, etc.; 1Ti_5:18. Le 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.

3. Gill, “Thou shall not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. As oxen are used in ploughing, so likewise in treading or beating out the corn; of the manner of which; see Gill on 1Co_9:9; now while it was thus employed, it might not be restrained by any means from eating the corn as it had an opportunity, either by a muzzle put over its mouth, or other ways. The Gentiles had several ways of restraining their cattle from eating, while they thus made use of them, to which this law is opposed. Maimonides (f)has collected several or them together, as prohibited by it; as putting a thorn into its mouth, causing a lion to lie down by it, or causing its calf to lie down without, or spreading a skin on the top of the corn, that so it may not eat. Aelianus (g) relates a very particular way of hindering oxen from eating at such times, used some countries, which was this; that oxen might not eat of the ears of corn, in a floor where they were trod out, they used to besmear their nostrils with cows' dung, which was so disagreeable to the creature, that it would not taste anything though pressed with famine. This law is not to be limited to the ox only, or to this peculiar work assigned it; but, as Jarchi says, respects any sort of cattle, and whatsoever work that has food in it, none of them being to be restrained from eating while at work: and this law was not made for the creatures only, but for men also; and especially for the sake of ministers of the word; who for their strength, labour, and industry, are compared to oxen, and ought to be comfortably supported and maintained on account of their work; for the illustration and confirmation of which this passage is twice produced; see Gill on 1Co_9:9; See Gill on 1Co_9:10; See Gill on 1Ti_5:17; See Gill on 1Ti_5:18.

4. Henry, “A charge to husbandmen not to hinder their cattle from eating when they were working, if meat were within their reach, Deu_25:4. This instance of the beast that trod out the corn (to which there is an allusion in that of the prophet, Hos_10:11) is put for all similar instances. That which makes this law very remarkable above its fellows (and which countenances the like application of other such laws) is that it is twice quoted in the New Testament to show that it is the duty of the people to give their ministers a comfortable maintenance, 1Co_9:9, 1Co_9:10, and 1Ti_5:17, 1Ti_5:18. It teaches us in the letter of it to make much of the brute-creatures that serve us, and to allow them not only the necessary supports for their life, but the advantages of their labour; and thus we must learn not only to be just, but kind, to all that are employed for

our good, not only to maintain but to encourage them, especially those that labour among us in the word and doctrine, and so are employed for the good of our better part.

5. Jamison, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn— In Judea, as in modern Syria and Egypt, the larger grains were beaten out by the feet of oxen, which, yoked together, day after day trod round the wide open spaces which form the threshing-floors. The animals were allowed freely to pick up a mouthful, when they chose to do so: a wise as well as humane regulation, introduced by the law of Moses (compare 1Co_9:9; 1Ti_5:17, 1Ti_5:18).

6. K&D, “The command not to put a muzzle upon the ox when threshing, is no doubt proverbial in its nature, and even in the context before us is not intended to apply merely literally to an ox employed in threshing, but to be understood in the general sense in which the Apostle Paul uses it in 1Co_9:9 and 1Ti_5:18, viz., that a labourer was not to be deprived of his wages. As the mode of threshing presupposed here - namely, with oxen yoked together, and driven to and fro over the corn that had been strewn upon the floor, that they might kick out the grains with their hoofs - has been retained to the present day in the East, so has also the custom of leaving the animals employed in threshing without a muzzle (vid., Hoest, Marokos, p. 129; Wellst. Arabien, i. p. 194; Robinson, Pal. ii. pp. 206-7, iii. p. 6), although the Mosaic injunctions are not so strictly observed by the Christians as by the Mohammedans (Robinson, ii. p. 207).

7. CALVI�, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox. This passage, indeed, properly belongs

to the Supplements of the Commandment, but, since it is a confirmation of the

foregoing decree, it seemed fit to connect them; especially because its faithful

expositor, Paul, declares, that God had no other design in delivering it than that the

laborer should not be defrauded of his just hire, (1 Corinthians 9:10;) for, when he

is speaking of the maintenance to be afforded to the ministers of the Gospel, he

adduces it. in proof of his case. And, lest any should object that there is a difference

between oxen and men, he adds, that God does not care for oxen, but that it was

said for the sake of those that labor. Meanwhile, we must bear in mind, that men are

so instructed in equity, that they are bound to exercise it even towards the brute

animals; for well does Solomon magnify the injustice, whereby our neighbor is

injured, by the comparison; “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.”

(Proverbs 12:10.) The sum is, that we should freely and voluntarily pay what is

right, and that every one should be strict with himself as to the performance of his

duty; for, if we are bound to supply subsistence to brute animals, much less must we

wait for men to be importunate with us, in order that they may obtain their due.

8. GUZIK, “You shall not muzzle an ox: This law simply commanded the humane treatment of a

working animal. In those days, grain would be broken away from his husk by having an ox walk on it repeatedly (usually around a circle). It would be cruel for force the ox to walk on all the grain, yet to

muzzle him so he couldn't eat of it.

b. In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul applies this principle to the minister's right to be supported by the people the ministers to. In fact, 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 leads us to believe that this is the real point God is making in this verse, because in that passage Paul asks, Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes?

9. PULPIT COMME�TARY, "The leaving the ox unmuzzled when treading out the

corn was in order that the animal might be free to eat of the grains which its labor

severed from the husks. This prohibition, therefore, was dictated by a regard to the

rights and claims of animals employed in labor; but there is involved in it the

general principle that all labor is to be duly requited, and hence it seems to have

passed into a proverb, and was applied to men as well as the lower animals (cf. 1

Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18). The use of oxen to tread out the corn and the rule

of leaving the animals so employed unmuzzled still prevail among the Arabs and

other Eastern peoples.

The use of this verse by the apostle has brought it out of an obscurity to which it

might have been relegated. It is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:10, and is there

applied by him as an illustration in the ancient Law of Moses of the same principle

which our Lord affirmed when he appointed that "they that preach the gospel

should live of the gospel" (see Matthew 10:9, Matthew 10:10). We can scarcely go so

far as John Calvin in reference to Paul's allusion to it. He says that Paul here says,

God does not care for oxen! Surely his meaning is simply that it was not merely

from his care for oxen that God commanded Moses to pen such a precept, but that

there was a common care of God for all his creatures, and that if he cared thus for

the less, it was very certain he would care even more for the greater. Labor,

moreover, is to be like all native growths—it is to have "its seed within itself." All

who employ laborers are to see that their workmen are sufficiently well paid to

enable them to live by their labor. Any one desiring to develop this truth in relation

to spiritual toil would naturally rather take the �ew Testament texts referred to

above. Keeping, therefore, simply to the earthly sphere, we remark:

1. �o precept in this book which is connected with duty or character is too trivial to

be "worthy of God."

2. An apparently small command may wrap up in it a great principle.

3. True benevolence will be kind and thoughtful to the humblest laborer even in

minute detail.

4. God does not allow any one selfishly to monopolize the fruits of another's labor

without giving the toiler adequate compensation for his toil.

5. The Great Defender of the rights of the working classes is—God!

6. It is a divinely appointed ordinance forever that the power of toil is to be a means

of self-support; that labor shall bring wealth to the laborer. Here is a blow struck at

slavery.

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. A�IMALS ARE E�TITLED TO GE�EROUS TREATME�T. 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 HUMA� LABORER IS E�TITLED TO SHARE I� 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. MI�ISTERS OF THE GOSPEL ARE E�TITLED 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.

10, F. B. MEYER, ""GOD taketh care of oxen," is Paul's comment on this text; and

so God did. These pages are filled with tokens of His thought--for the ass that might

not be overtaxed by being set to plough with an ox; for the ass or ox which were to

be helped up if they had sunk on the road overpowered with their burdens; or for

the bird sitting on her nest. Here the ox, as it went around the monotonous tread of

the mill, was to be allowed to take a chance mouthful of corn.

The care for dumb creatures is part of our religious duty. It is one of the elements of

religion to think for the dumb creatures, who are not able to speak for themselves,

but suffer so patiently the accumulated wrongs heaped on them by man. "A

righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked

are cruel." Oh, when will the travail of creation cease! Man's sin has indeed worked

woe for the lower orders of creation.

The Apostle used this injunction to remind his converts of the necessity of caring for

their spiritual teachers. Some are called to plough, others to thresh; but "he that

plougheth should plough in hope; and he that thresheth in hope should be partaker

of his hope" (1 Cor. 9:10). They that serve the altar should live by the altar; and

those who proclaim the Gospel should live of the Gospel.

But there is sweet encouragement here for those who are anxious about their daily

bread. God takes care for oxen; will He not for you? Shall the oxen browse on the

wolds and pasture-lands, and be nourished to fatness, and will He leave to starve the

soul that really trusts and serves Him?

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.

1. Barnes, “On Levirate Marriages. - Deu_25:5, Deu_25:6. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i.e., away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a

brother-in-law to her. ַיֵ ם,�denom.�fromָיָבם�,�a�brother-in-law,�husband's�brother,�lit.,�to�act�the�

brother-in-law,�i.e.,�perform�the�duty�of�a�brother-in-law,�which�consisted�in�his�marrying�his�

deceased�brother's�widow,�and�begetting�a�son�of�children�with�her,�the�first-born�of�whom�was�

“to�stand�upon�the�name�of�his�deceased�brother,”�i.e.,�be�placed�in�the�family�of�the�deceased,�

and�be�recognised�as�the�heir�of�his�property,�that�his�name�(the�name�of�the�man�who�had�died�

childless)�might�not�be�wiped�out�or�vanish�out�of�Israel.�The�provision,�“without�having�a�son”�

(ben),�has�been�correctly�interpreted�by�the�lxx,�Vulg.,�Josephus�(Ant.�iv.�8,�23),�and�the�Rabbins,�

as�signifying�childless�(having�no�seed,�Mat_22:25);�for�if�the�deceased�had�simply�a�daughter,�

according�to�Num_27:4.,�the�perpetuation�of�his�house�and�name�was�to�be�ensured�through�her.�

The�obligation�of�a�brother-in-law's�marriage�only�existed�in�cases�where�the�brothers�had�lived�

together,�i.e.,�in�one�and�the�same�place,�not�necessarily�in�one�house�or�with�a�common�domestic�

establishment�and�home�(vid.,�Gen_13:6;�Gen_36:7).�-�This�custom�of�a�brother-in-law's�

(Levirate)�marriage,�which�is�met�with�in�different�nations,�and�as�an�old�traditional�custom�

among�the�Israelites�(see�at�Gen_38:8.),�had�its�natural�roots�in�the�desire�inherent�in�man,�who�

is�formed�for�immortality,�and�connected�with�the�hitherto�undeveloped�belief�in�an�eternal�life,�

to�secure�a�continued�personal�existence�for�himself�and�immorality�for�his�name,�through�the�

perpetuation�of�his�family�and�in�the�life�of�the�son�who�took�his�place.�This�desire�was�not�

suppressed�in�Israel�by�divine�revelation,�but�rather�increased,�inasmuch�as�the�promises�given�to�

the�patriarchs�were�bound�up�with�the�preservation�and�propagation�of�their�seed�and�name.�The�

promise�given�to�Abraham�for�his�seed�would�of�necessity�not�only�raise�the�begetting�of�children�

in�the�religious�views�of�the�Israelites�into�the�work�desired�by�God�and�well-pleasing�to�Him,�but�

would�also�give�this�significance�to�the�traditional�custom�of�preserving�the�name�and�family�by�

the�substitution�of�a�marriage�of�duty,�that�they�would�thereby�secure�to�themselves�and�their�

family�a�share�in�the�blessing�of�promise.�Moses�therefore�recognised�this�custom�as�perfectly�

justifiable;�but�he�sought�to�restrain�it�within�such�limits,�that�it�should�not�present�any�

impediment�to�the�sanctification�of�marriage�aimed�at�by�the�law.�He�took�away�the�compulsory�

character,�which�it�hitherto�possessed,�by�prescribing�in�Deu_25:7.,�that�if�the�surviving�brother�

refused�to�marry�his�widowed�sister-in-law,�she�was�to�bring�the�matter�into�the�gate�before�the�

elders�of�the�town�(vid.,�Deu_21:19),�i.e.,�before�the�magistrates;�and�if�the�brother-in-law�still�

persisted�in�his�refusal,�she�was�to�take�his�shoe�from�off�his�foot�and�spit�in�his�face,�with�these�

words:�“So�let�it�be�done�to�the�man�who�does�not�build�up�his�brother's�house.”

The�taking�off�of�the�shoe�was�an�ancient�custom�in�Israel,�adopted,�according�to�Rth_4:7,�in�

cases�of�redemption�and�exchange,�for�the�purpose�of�confirming�commercial�transactions.�The�

usage�arose�from�the�fact,�that�when�any�one�took�possession�of�landed�property�he�did�so�by�

treading�upon�the�soil,�and�asserting�his�right�of�possession�by�standing�upon�it�in�his�shoes.�In�

this�way�the�taking�off�of�the�shoe�and�handing�it�to�another�became�a�symbol�of�the�renunciation�

of�a�man's�position�and�property,�-�a�symbol�which�was�also�common�among�the�Indians�and�the�

ancient�Germans�(see�my�Archäologie,�ii.�p.�66).�But�the�custom�was�an�ignominious�one�in�such�

a�case�as�this,�when�the�shoe�was�publicly�taken�off�the�foot�of�the�brother-in-law�by�the�widow�

whom�he�refused�to�marry.�He�was�thus�deprived�of�the�position�which�he�ought�to�have�

occupied�in�relation�to�her�and�to�his�deceased�brother,�or�to�his�paternal�house;�and�the�disgrace�

involved�in�this�was�still�further�heightened�by�the�fact�that�his�sister-in-law�spat�in�his�face.�This�

is�the�meaning�of�the�words�(cf.�Num_12:14),�and�not�merely�spit�on�the�ground�before�his�eyes,�

as�Saalschütz�and�others�as�well�as�the�Talmudists�(tr.�Jebam.�xii.�6)�render�it,�for�the�purpose�of�

diminishing�the�disgrace.�“Build�up�his�brother's�house,”�i.e.,�lay�the�foundation�of�a�family�or�

posterity�for�him�(cf.�Gen_16:2).�-�In�addition�to�this,�the�unwilling�brother-in-law�was�to�receive�

a�name�of�ridicule�in�Israel:�“House�of�the�shoe�taken�off”�( ֲחלּוץ ַהַ[ַעל ,�taken�off�as�to�his�shoe;�cf.�

Ewald,�§288,�b.),�i.e.,�of�the�barefooted�man,�equivalent�to�“the�miserable�fellow;”�for�it�was�only�

in�miserable�circumstances�that�the�Hebrews�went�barefoot�(vid.,�Isa_20:2-3;�eted�as�a�false�

freedom�granted�to�the�female�sex”�(Baumgarten),�the�law�is�added�immediately�afterwards,�that�

a�woman�whose�husband�was�quarrelling�with�another,�and�who�should�come�to�his�assistance�by�

laying�hold�of�the�secret�parts�of�the�man�who�was�striking�her�husband,�should�have�her�hand�cut�

off.

1B.�Matthew 22:24

24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘a If a man dies having no children, his brother as next

of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’

Mark�Mark�Mark�Mark�12121212::::19�19�19�19�

19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that a if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife

and leaves no child, his brother should 1 marry the wife and raise up children to his

brother.

Luke�Luke�Luke�Luke�20202020::::28�28�28�28�

28 and they questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that a if a man’s

brother dies, having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should 1 marry the wife

and raise up children to his brother.

2. CALVI�, “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die. This law has some

similarity with that which permits a betrothed person to return to the wife, whom he has

not yet taken; since the object of both is to preserve to every man what he possesses, so

that he may not be obliged to leave it to strangers, but that he may have heirs begotten of

his own body: for, when a son succeeds to the father, whom he represents, there seems to

be hardly any change made. Hence, too, it is manifest how greatly pleasing to God it is

that no one should be deprived of his property, since He makes a provision even for the

dying, that what they could not resign to others without regret and annoyance, should be

preserved to their offspring. Unless, therefore, his kinsman should obviate the dead man’s

childlessness, this inhumanity is accounted a kind of theft. For, since to be childless was a

curse of God, it was a consolation in this condition to hope for a borrowed offspring, that

the name might not be altogether extinct.

Since we now understand the intention of the law, we must also observe that the word

brethren does not mean actual brothers, but cousins, and other kinsmen, whose marriage

with the widows of their relative would not have been incestuous; otherwise God would

contradict Himself. But these two things are quite compatible, that no one should uncover

the nakedness of his brother, and yet that a widow should not marry out of her husband’s

family, until she had raised up seed to him from some relation. In fact, Boaz did not

marry Ruth because he was the brother of her deceased husband, but only his near

kinsman. If any should object that it is not probable that other kinsmen should dwell

together, I reply that this passage is improperly supposed to refer to actual living together,

as if they dwelt in the same house, but that the precept is merely addressed to relations,

whose near residence rendered it convenient to take the widows to their own homes; for,

if any lived far away, liberty was accorded to both to seek the fulfillment of the provision

elsewhere. Surely it is not probable that God would have authorized an incestuous

marriage, which He had before expressed His abomination of. Nor can it be doubted, as I

have above stated, but that the like necessity was imposed upon the woman of offering

herself to the kinsman of her former husband; and although there was harshness in this,

still she seemed to owe this much to his memory, that she should willingly raise up seed

to the deceased; yet, if any one think differently, I will not contend the point with him. If,

however, she were not obliged to do so, it was absurd that she should voluntarily obtrude

herself: nor was there any other reason why she should bring to trial the kinsman, from

whom she had suffered a repulse, except that she might acquire the liberty of marrying

into another family. Yet it is not probable that he was to be condemned to an ignominious

punishment, without being admitted to make his defense, because sometimes just reasons

for refusal might be alleged. This disgrace, therefore, was only a penalty for inhumanity

or avarice. By giving up his shoe, he renounced his right of relationship, and gave it up to

another: for, by behaving so unkindly towards the dead, he became unworthy of reaping

any of the advantages of his relationship.

3. Gill, “If brethren dwell together,.... Not only in the same country, province, town, or city, but in the same house; such who had been from their youth brought up together in their father's house, and now one of them being married, as the case put supposes, they that were unmarried might live with him, and especially if the father was dead; and so may except such as were abroad, and in foreign countries, or at such a distance that this law coals not well be observed by them; though the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi, interpret it of their being united in an inheritance, all by virtue of relation having a claim to their father's inheritance; so that it mattered not where they dwelt, it is the relation that is regarded, and their right of inheritance; and the above Targum describes them as brethren on the father's side, and so Jarchi says excepts his brother on the mother's side; for brethren by the mother's side, in case of inheritance, and the marrying of a brother's wife, were not reckoned brethren, as Maimonides (h) observes; who adds, that there is no brotherhood but on the father's side. Some think that when there were no brethren in a strict and proper sense, the near kinsmen, sometimes called brethren, were to do the office here enjoined, and which they conclude from the case of Boaz and Ruth; but Aben Ezra contradicts this, and says that instance is no proof of it, it respecting another affair, not marriage, but redemption; and says that brethren, absolutely and strictly speaking are here meant; which is agreeably to their tradition (i):

and one of them die, and have no child: son, or daughter, son's son, or daughter's son, or daughter's daughter, as Jarchi notes; if there were either of these, children or grandchildren, of either sex, there was no obligation to marry a brother's wife; so, in the case put to Christ, there was no issue, the person was childless, Mat_22:24,

the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; by whom is meant not a Gentile, or a proselyte of the gate, or of righteousness, but any Israelite

whatever, that was not of her husband's family; she might not marry out of the family; that is, she was refused by all, the design of the law being to secure inheritances, and continue them in families to which they belonged:

her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife; that is, supposing him to be unmarried, and this is indeed supposed in the first clause of the text, by dwelling with his brother; for had he been married, he would have dwelt with his wife and family apart; besides, if this law obliged a married man to marry his brother's wife, polygamy would be required and established by a law of God, which was never otherwise than permitted. This is to be understood of the eldest brother, as Jarchi, who is in an unmarried state; so it is said in the Misnah (k),"the command is upon the eldest to marry his brother's wife; if he will not, they go to all the brethren; if they will not, they return to the eldest; and say to him, upon thee is the commandment, either allow the shoe to be plucked off, or marry;''and such a course we find was taken among the Jews in our Lord's time, Mat_22:25,

and perform the duty of an husband's brother to her; cohabit together as man and wife, in order to raise up seed to his brother, and perform all the offices and duties of an husband to a wife; but the marriage solemnity was not to take place when it was agreed to, until three months or ninety days had passed from the death of the brother, that it might be known whether she was with child or no by her husband, and in such a case this law had no force; so runs the Jewish canon (l)"a brother's wife may not pluck off the shoe, nor be married, until three months;''that is, after her husband's death.

4. Henry, “Here is, I. The law settled concerning the marrying of the brother's widow. It appears from the story of Judah's family that this had been an ancient usage (Gen_38:8), for the keeping up of distinct families. The case put is a case that often happens, of a man's dying without issue, it may be in the prime of his time, soon after his marriage, and while his brethren were yet so young as to be unmarried. Now in this case, 1. The widow was not to marry again into any other family, unless all the relations of her husband did refuse her, that the estate she was endowed with might not be alienated. 2. The husband's brother, or next of kin, must marry her, partly out of respect to her, who, having forgotten her own people and her father's house, should have all possible kindness shown her by the family into which she was married; and partly out of respect to the deceased husband, that though he was dead and gone he might not be forgotten, nor lost out of the genealogies of his tribe; for the first-born child, which the brother or next kinsman should have by the widow, should be denominated from him that was dead, and entered in the genealogy as his child, Deu_25:5, Deu_25:6. Under that dispensation we have reason to think men had not so clear and certain a prospect of living themselves on the other side death as we have now, to whom life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel; and therefore they could not but be the more desirous to live in their posterity, which innocent desire was in some measure gratified by this law, an expedient being found out that, though a man had no child by his wife, yet his name should not be put out of Israel, that is, out of the pedigree, or, which is equivalent, remain there under the brand of childlessness. The Sadducees put a case to our Saviour upon this law, with a design to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection by it (Mat_22:24, etc.), perhaps insinuating that there was no need of maintaining the immortality of the soul and a future state, since the law had so well provided for the perpetuating of men's names and families in the world. But, 3. If the brother, or next of

kin, declined to do this good office to the memory of him that was gone, what must be done in that case? Why, (1.) He shall not be compelled to do it, Deu_25:7. If he like her not, he is at liberty to refuse her, which, some think, was not permitted in this case before this law of Moses. Affection is all in all to the comfort of the conjugal relation; this is a thing which cannot be forced, and therefore the relation should not be forced without it. (2.) Yet he shall be publicly disgraced for not doing it. The widow, as the person most concerned for the name and honour of the deceased, was to complain to the elders of his refusal; if he persist in it, she must pluck off his shoe, and spit in his face, in open court (or, as the Jewish doctors moderate it, spit before his face), thus to fasten a mark of infamy upon him, which was to remain with his family after him, Deu_25:8-10. Note, Those justly suffer in their own reputation who do not do what they ought to preserve the name and honour of others. He that would not build up his brother's house deserved to have this blemish put upon his own, that it should be called the house of him that had his shoe loosed, in token that he deserved to go barefoot. In the case of Ruth we find this law executed (Rth_4:7), but because, upon the refusal of the next kinsman, there was another ready to perform the duty of a husband's brother, it was that other that plucked off the shoe, and not the widow - Boaz, and not Ruth.

II. A law for the punishing of an immodest woman, Deu_25:11, Deu_25:12. The woman that by the foregoing law was to complain against her husband's brother for not marrying her, and to spit in his face before the elders, needed a good measure of assurance; but, lest the confidence which that law supported should grow to an excess unbecoming the sex, here is a very severe but just law to punish impudence and immodesty. 1. The instance of it is confessedly scandalous to the highest degree. A woman could not do it unless she were perfectly lost to all virtue and honour. 2. The occasion is such as might in part excuse it; it was to help her husband out of the hands of one that was too hard for him. Now if the doing of it in a passion, and with such a good intention, was to be so severely punished, much more when it was done wantonly and in lust. 3. The punishment was that her hand should be cut off; and the magistrates must not pretend to be more merciful than God: Thy eye shall not pity her. Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes.

5. Jamison, “the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother ... shall take her to him to wife— This usage existed before the age of Moses (Gen_38:8). But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory (Mat_22:25) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow (Rth_4:4), by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother’s name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If the younger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow brought her claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly (the gate of the city); and he having declared his refusal, she was ordered to loose the thong of his shoe - a sign of degradation - following up that act by spitting on the ground - the strongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people. The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated.

6. K&D, “On Levirate Marriages. - Deu_25:5, Deu_25:6. If brothers lived together, and one of them died childless, the wife of the deceased was not to be married outside (i.e., away from the family) to a strange man (one not belonging to her kindred); her brother-in-law was to come to her and take her for his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-

law to her. ַיֵ ם,�denom.�fromָיָבם�,�a�brother-in-law,�husband's�brother,�lit.,�to�act�the�brother-in-

law,�i.e.,�perform�the�duty�of�a�brother-in-law,�which�consisted�in�his�marrying�his�deceased�

brother's�widow,�and�begetting�a�son�of�children�with�her,�the�first-born�of�whom�was�“to�stand�

upon�the�name�of�his�deceased�brother,”�i.e.,�be�placed�in�the�family�of�the�deceased,�and�be�

recognised�as�the�heir�of�his�property,�that�his�name�(the�name�of�the�man�who�had�died�

childless)�might�not�be�wiped�out�or�vanish�out�of�Israel.�The�provision,�“without�having�a�son”�

(ben),�has�been�correctly�interpreted�by�the�lxx,�Vulg.,�Josephus�(Ant.�iv.�8,�23),�and�the�Rabbins,�

as�signifying�childless�(having�no�seed,�Mat_22:25);�for�if�the�deceased�had�simply�a�daughter,�

according�to�Num_27:4.,�the�perpetuation�of�his�house�and�name�was�to�be�ensured�through�her.�

The�obligation�of�a�brother-in-law's�marriage�only�existed�in�cases�where�the�brothers�had�lived�

together,�i.e.,�in�one�and�the�same�place,�not�necessarily�in�one�house�or�with�a�common�domestic�

establishment�and�home�(vid.,�Gen_13:6;�Gen_36:7).�-�This�custom�of�a�brother-in-law's�

(Levirate)�marriage,�which�is�met�with�in�different�nations,�and�as�an�old�traditional�custom�

among�the�Israelites�(see�at�Gen_38:8.),�had�its�natural�roots�in�the�desire�inherent�in�man,�who�

is�formed�for�immortality,�and�connected�with�the�hitherto�undeveloped�belief�in�an�eternal�life,�

to�secure�a�continued�personal�existence�for�himself�and�immorality�for�his�name,�through�the�

perpetuation�of�his�family�and�in�the�life�of�the�son�who�took�his�place.�This�desire�was�not�

suppressed�in�Israel�by�divine�revelation,�but�rather�increased,�inasmuch�as�the�promises�given�to�

the�patriarchs�were�bound�up�with�the�preservation�and�propagation�of�their�seed�and�name.�The�

promise�given�to�Abraham�for�his�seed�would�of�necessity�not�only�raise�the�begetting�of�children�

in�the�religious�views�of�the�Israelites�into�the�work�desired�by�God�and�well-pleasing�to�Him,�but�

would�also�give�this�significance�to�the�traditional�custom�of�preserving�the�name�and�family�by�

the�substitution�of�a�marriage�of�duty,�that�they�would�thereby�secure�to�themselves�and�their�

family�a�share�in�the�blessing�of�promise.�Moses�therefore�recognised�this�custom�as�perfectly�

justifiable;�but�he�sought�to�restrain�it�within�such�limits,�that�it�should�not�present�any�

impediment�to�the�sanctification�of�marriage�aimed�at�by�the�law.�He�took�away�the�compulsory�

character,�which�it�hitherto�possessed,�by�prescribing�in�Deu_25:7.,�that�if�the�surviving�brother�

refused�to�marry�his�widowed�sister-in-law,�she�was�to�bring�the�matter�into�the�gate�before�the�

elders�of�the�town�(vid.,�Deu_21:19),�i.e.,�before�the�magistrates;�and�if�the�brother-in-law�still�

persisted�in�his�refusal,�she�was�to�take�his�shoe�from�off�his�foot�and�spit�in�his�face,�with�these�

words:�“So�let�it�be�done�to�the�man�who�does�not�build�up�his�brother's�house.”

The�taking�off�of�the�shoe�was�an�ancient�custom�in�Israel,�adopted,�according�to�Rth_4:7,�in�

cases�of�redemption�and�exchange,�for�the�purpose�of�confirming�commercial�transactions.�The�

usage�arose�from�the�fact,�that�when�any�one�took�possession�of�landed�property�he�did�so�by�

treading�upon�the�soil,�and�asserting�his�right�of�possession�by�standing�upon�it�in�his�shoes.�In�

this�way�the�taking�off�of�the�shoe�and�handing�it�to�another�became�a�symbol�of�the�renunciation�

of�a�man's�position�and�property,�-�a�symbol�which�was�also�common�among�the�Indians�and�the�

ancient�Germans�(see�my�Archäologie,�ii.�p.�66).�But�the�custom�was�an�ignominious�one�in�such�

a�case�as�this,�when�the�shoe�was�publicly�taken�off�the�foot�of�the�brother-in-law�by�the�widow�

whom�he�refused�to�marry.�He�was�thus�deprived�of�the�position�which�he�ought�to�have�

occupied�in�relation�to�her�and�to�his�deceased�brother,�or�to�his�paternal�house;�and�the�disgrace�

involved�in�this�was�still�further�heightened�by�the�fact�that�his�sister-in-law�spat�in�his�face.�This�

is�the�meaning�of�the�words�(cf.�Num_12:14),�and�not�merely�spit�on�the�ground�before�his�eyes,�

as�Saalschütz�and�others�as�well�as�the�Talmudists�(tr.�Jebam.�xii.�6)�render�it,�for�the�purpose�of�

diminishing�the�disgrace.�“Build�up�his�brother's�house,”�i.e.,�lay�the�foundation�of�a�family�or�

posterity�for�him�(cf.�Gen_16:2).�-�In�addition�to�this,�the�unwilling�brother-in-law�was�to�receive�

a�name�of�ridicule�in�Israel:�“House�of�the�shoe�taken�off”�( ֲחלּוץ ַהַ[ַעל ,�taken�off�as�to�his�shoe;�cf.�

Ewald,�§288,�b.),�i.e.,�of�the�barefooted�man,�equivalent�to�“the�miserable�fellow;”�for�it�was�only�

in�miserable�circumstances�that�the�Hebrews�went�barefoot�(vid.,�Isa_20:2-3;�eted�as�a�false�

freedom�granted�to�the�female�sex”�(Baumgarten),�the�law�is�added�immediately�afterwards,�that�

a�woman�whose�husband�was�quarrelling�with�another,�and�who�should�come�to�his�assistance�by�

laying�hold�of�the�secret�parts�of�the�man�who�was�striking�her�husband,�should�have�her�hand�cut�

off.

7. DAVE GUZIK, “(5-10) The marriage obligation of surviving brothers.

a. In ancient Israel, it was seen as a great tragedy for a man to die without leaving descendants

to carry on his name, and to give his family inheritance to. Therefore, if a man dies and has no

son, it is 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.

i. "The practice of levirate marriage . . . 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." (Thompson)

b. When a son was born to this union, it would not be counted as the son of the surviving

brother, but as son to the deceased brother: 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.

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 v.5 meant 'son' or 'child.' The LXX and Josephus render it 'child.' Moses had already established that when no male heir existed, daughters would be heirs or their father's property (2um 27:1-8)." (Kalland)

c. If the brothers of the deceased man refused to take this responsibility, they were to be called

to open shame by the widow, as she declares he will not perform the duty of my husband's

brother. The shame was compounded as they would remove his sandal and the widow would

spit in his face.

8. HAWKER, "I venture to think that this precept had in it somewhat more, than merely what is contained in the obvious letter of it. If it be remembered, that the promise of the woman’s seed, bruising the serpent’s head, had not in those early ages been so clearly and fully revealed, in what stock or tribe the promised seed should spring, this will serve to show, why it was that the whole nation of the Jews were so very anxious to have children. And, therefore, the preserving the name in Israel was principally with this view. But if we turn to the example of Boaz, in the case of Ruth, where this precept was fully carried into effect, and read what the HOLY GHOST hath been pleased to record concerning this thing: and if we do not forget, at the same time, that Boaz after the flesh, was a progenitor of the LORD JESUS CHRIST; the subject will then open to our view in all its glory. See Rth_3:9, to the end, and Ru 4 throughout. Blessed JESUS! thou art indeed our near kinsman, our GOD-Redeemer! and thou hast not only married our nature, but hast redeemed our mortgaged inheritance, when all other brethren were incompetent to do it.

9. PULPIT COMME�TARY, "Levirate marriages. If a man who was married died

without issue, his surviving brother was required to marry the widow, so as to raise

up a successor to the deceased, who should be his heir. The brother who refused this

duty must be publicly disgraced. The design of this institution—which was not

originated by Moses, but came down from early times (Genesis 38:8), and is to be

found amongst ether nations than the Jews, and that even in the present day—was

to preserve a family from becoming extinct and to secure the property of a family

from passing into the hands of a stranger. The notion that the usage "had its natural

roots in the desire inherent in man who is born for immortality, and connected with

the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal

existence for himself and immortality for his name through the perpetuation of his

family, and in the life of the son who took his place" (Keil), seems wholly fanciful.

The levitate law.

At the root of this law, which obtained widely in the East, we find ideas and feelings

such as these—

I. RESPECT FOR THE HO�OR OF THE FAMILY. In the East, as is well known,

childlessness is reckoned a calamity, almost a disgrace. Hence, as well as for other

reasons, the severity of the law in Deuteronomy 25:11. Hence also this custom of

marrying a brother's widow, in order to raise up seed to the brother. The motive is

plainly to avert disgrace from a brother's house, to wipe out his reproach, to hand

down his name in honor. We may respect the feeling while repudiating the form in

which it embodied itself. What touches the credit of our families ought to be felt to

concern ourselves. �ot in the sense, certainly, of leading us to uphold that credit at

the expense of truth and of justice to others; but in the sense of doing everything we

can with a good conscience to maintain or redeem it.

II. DESIRE FOR A PERPETUATED �AME. The men of the old dispensation, as

Matthew Henry says, not having so clear and certain a prospect of living themselves

on the other side death as we have now, were the more anxious to live in their

posterity. The principle is the same at bottom as that which leads us to wish for

personal immortality. What man desires is perpetuated existence, of which existence

in one's posterity is a kind of shadow, affording, in contemplation, a like "shadow of

satisfaction" to the mind. Positivism, in falling back from a personal to a corporate

immortality, is thus a movement in the wrong direction. The exchange it proposes is

the substance for the shadow. The desire to exist in the remembrance of posterity,

and to be well thought of by them, is, however, a legitimate principle of action. It

should operate in leading us to live good and useful lives, which is the secret of the

only lasting honor.

"Only the actions of the just

Smell sweet and blossom in the dust."

III. THE DISGRACE ATTACHI�G TO REFUSAL OF THE DUTIES IMPOSED

O� US BY RELATIO�SHIP TO THE DEAD. The disgrace in this case was

emphatically marked (verses 9, 10). The wishes of the dead should be very sacred to

us. The duties which spring from the bond of relationship, or from express request,

should, if possible, be faithfully discharged. Aiding in the settlement of affairs,

seeing provision made for a widow and children, accepting and fulfilling trusts,

etc.—J.O.

The rights of the firstborn.

We have already observed that the firstborn had a right to a double share of the

family inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17). We have before us another of his rights—a

seed was to be raised up unto him by his younger brothers, that his name should not

be put out in Israel. In a peasant proprietary such as existed in Palestine, we can

easily understand the importance of such a regulation. It was, moreover, esteemed a

most disgraceful act to refuse to raise up seed unto a dead brother, and the man

guilty of it had to suffer the indignity of being spat upon, and of having his shoe

contemptuously loosed.

�ow, there can be no question that Jesus Christ occupies the position of Eldest

Brother in the family of God. �ot only was it declared prophetically, "I will make

him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth" (Psalms 89:27), but he is

expressly called "the Firstborn from the dead," "the Firstborn among many

brethren," and "the Firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:29;

Colossians 1:15). Undoubtedly, then, the rights guaranteed by Jewish Law to the

firstborn were intended to illustrate the rights of Jesus Christ.

I. JESUS CHRIST, LIKE THE DEAD FIRSTBOR�, HAS TO DEPE�D O�

OTHERS FOR A SPIRITUAL SEED. For in the nature of things it would have

been incongruous for Incarnate God to have entered into marriage with any

daughter of Adam, and to have become physically a father. His condescension was

surely great enough in becoming man at all, and it could not be expected that he

would enter into still closer relations to the race. �one ever stood in the relation to

physical children of Jesus Christ; it would have made a confusion in the

contemplated spiritual relationship. Hence our Lord bad to look to others to raise

him up a seed.

II. IT LIFTS THE FAMILY RELATIO� I�TO THE HOLIEST LIGHT TO

THI�K THAT WE MAY BE RAISI�G UP A SPIRITUAL SEED FOR JESUS.

How holy all marriage relations become when it is felt to be possible to be providing

the Great Elder Brother with a spiritual seed! The children sent of God are then

regarded as Christ's; we dedicate them to him in prayer, and perhaps also in

baptism; we handle them and rear them as consecrated things; we train them up in

his nurture and admonition, and we feel honored in having any part in the

formation of "the mighty family."

III. IT LIFTS THE PASTORAL AS WELL AS PARE�TAL RELATIO� I�TO

THE HOLIEST LIGHT. In Weemse's book on the 'Ceremonial Laws of Moses,'

where "the privileges of the firstborn" are so fully discussed, the application is

made to preachers rather than to parents. But we think that parents should feel the

elevation of spirit and life which the idea of raising up a seed for Jesus is fitted to

impart. And if parents should feel it, much more should pastors. We are meant to be

the "spiritual fathers" of men. We have exceptional advantages in prosecuting the

holy work. Oh, how glorious it is to think of adding by our faithful labors to the

great family of God! It is the �ame and honor of Jesus which we should seek to

perpetuate by our pastoral labors. And so our aim is to have men born again

through the incorruptible seed, the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever

(1 Peter 1:23).

IV. A�Y REFUSAL TO RAISE UP A SEED FOR JESUS WILL BE VISITED BY

GOD I� DUE SEASO� WITH DIRE DISGRACE. For the spitting in the face and

the unloosing of the shoe are but symbols of the dire disgrace which shall overtake

all who will not engage in this holy work. It is a work for Church members as well

as for ministers. It lies as a responsibility upon every one that names the �ame of

Jesus, and is a younger brother or sister in the family of God. Woe be to the person

who is indifferent to this!

And surely it should stimulate us to remember that the great ambition of Jesus is to

have "many brethren." The mightier the multitude of redeemed ones the better. The

glory and honor of Immanuel shall thus be the more thoroughly secured. He has no

desire to be the solitary and selfish heir; but the whole plan of redemption is to have

as many as possible "joint-heirs" with him. As families and as Churches grow in

numbers and in loyalty to Jesus, his rights as Firstborn are being regarded and

secured (Romans 8:17).

We cannot picture the dire disgrace which the refusal to secure the rights of Jesus

Christ will entail. But the selfish souls will be the off scouring of all things; angels

will despise them as having highest honor within reach, and not having the heart to

accept it. Oh, let every one that has a word to speak and a kindness to perform in

the �ame of Jesus, do it in the holy hope of increasing the spiritual seed of the great

and loving Elder Brother!—R.M.E.

10. PETER PETTIT, "We should note the condition. The brothers must be

‘dwelling together’ (compare Psalms 133:1). That meant that they must be living on

the same ‘estate’, although not necessarily in the same house, with their lands jointly

worked as a family concern. They would have decided to keep the family estates

together rather than split them up when they inherited. It therefore suggested a

close family bond. Family feeling and family unity was especially strong among the

ancients. This condition indicated that the aim to keep the estates together and the

maintenance of the deceased brother’s name were central to the whole idea.

The idea then was that the surviving brother should take his brother’s wife as one of

his own wives in order to keep things in the family, although it may well be that she

had a more independent status and was not necessarily seen as a fully functioning

wife. Any land that she had brought with her would then remain in the family and

not go to ‘strangers’, as would any wealth that had passed to her. She should not

need to look for an outsider to marry, but would remain as a part of the family

circle. And the brother would have discreet sexual relations with her in order to

‘perform the duty of a husband’s brother’ towards her, so as to raise up a son for

his brother. This was the only case where a woman having sexual relations with her

husband’s brother was allowed. Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21 refer either to

where the brother was still living or to cases where the marriage was for the wrong

reasons. Intention was everything, and would be known to Yahweh. There was

nothing sordid or behind hand about it. The aim was totally meritorious, to preserve

the brother’s name.

�umbers 27:8-11 may suggest that it may not have been seen as necessary when

there were daughters who could inherit, although as that would not ensure the

preservation of the deceased husband’s name, it was probably seen as second best.

That case may have in mind circumstances where a Levirate marriage was not

possible through a failure to be able to meet the conditions in one way or another

(through, for example, the refusal mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:7, or because the

family was no longer a close family unit, or because the wife was also dead). But

once they had inherited their father’s land the women were not then to marry

outside the tribe, taking the land with them (see �umbers 36:1-9). This does bring

out how important it was seen to be at that time that land remained within the

family and within the tribe. And that the Levirate marriage would ensure.

11. I don't have a name for whoever wrote all of the following on this verse.

:5 and have no child

There was also a period of three months that followed the death of the

husband, during which everyone waited to see if the widow was

pregnant from her deceased husband. If she was already pregnant, then

this law wasn’t put into effect.

:5 her husband's brother shall go in unto her,

This section was known as the “Levirate” law, the duty of a man to raise

up a name for a deceased brother who had no offspring. The Latin

word levir means “brother-in-law”.

There were two unwritten rules here – first, it was the eldest brother who had the

duty to marry the widow, and second, only if the brother was unmarried. This is

how the Jews put this into practice.

This was a custom that actually predated Moses.

When Judah’s son Er died without having had a child with his wife Tamar, Judah

made Er’s brother Onan marry Tamar to produce offspring (Gen. 38:8).

(Gen 38:8 KJV) And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

The Sadducees used this law to try and trap Jesus:

(Mat 22:23-33 KJV) The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, {24} Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. {25} Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: {26} Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. {27} And last of all the woman died also. {28} Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

They were building a situation based upon the Levirate law, where a brother dies and the wife is taken by the next brother to fulfill his responsibilities. Then this brother dies, and the next brother takes her, and so on until all brothers have died. The Sadducees don’t believe in a resurrection, and they want to show how silly the whole idea is. They think they have a difficult situation for Jesus to solve in asking whose wife she will be in this “resurrection”.

{29} Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. {30} For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

There is no marriage in heaven. We will not be married to our spouse in heaven.

For some, this is a relief. I hope for most of us, this is sad news. Jesus’ approach to their argument is simply to tell them that the gal won’t be

married to any of them in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven. You won’t stay married to your current spouse in heaven, you won’t be

marrying anybody else in heaven.

There are other belief systems that have ideas about heaven that differ from the Bible.

Islam

I don’t know if this qualifies as marriage in heaven, but in the Qur’an it is written,

“Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires; Gardens

enclosed, and grapevines, And voluptuous women of equal age” (78:31-33).

Mormonism

The Mormons have some unusual ideas about marriage and heaven. They have a ritual

that “seals” your marriage so you will be married in heaven, then you can have spirit

babies, and become a god over your own planet.

Former LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote that those who attain exaltation "…inherit in due course the fullness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all power in heaven and on earth..." (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257). The LDS Doctrine and

Covenants also teaches that "then shall they be gods, because they have no end…then shall they be gods, because they have all power…" (D&C 132:16-26). This is the ultimate goal in Mormonism.

This sounds a little like what we read in Genesis 3:5 – your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, the only problem is, this is what Satan said to tempt Eve.

One of the requirements to reach this goal is what Mormons call "celestial marriage." Today celestial marriage is simply defined as a marriage in a Mormon temple designed to last not just until death but throughout all eternity. Couples joined in such marriages are considered "sealed" to each other. Their children afterward are automatically "sealed" to them as well. This, they believe, ensures that their family will continue in heaven eternally as a complete unit.

McConkie wrote, "Celestial marriage is the gate to exaltation, and exaltation consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Exaltation is…the kind of life which God lives" (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257). Celestial marriage is an absolute necessity to reach this desired goal. Its importance in the place of salvation and exaltation cannot be overestimated. "The most important things that any member of (the LDS Church) ever does in this world are: 1) To marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority; and 2) To keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony…" (Mormon Doctrine pg. 118).

All Mormon men who desire Godhood are required to marry; if they do not, their

leaders have taught that their actions will be displeasing to God. For instance, 10th

LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Any young man who carelessly neglects this great commandment to marry, or who does not marry because of a selfish desire to avoid the responsibilities which married life will bring, is taking a course which is displeasing in the sight of God…There can be no exaltation without it. If a man refuses…he is taking a course which may bar him forever from (exaltation)."(Doctrines of Salvation 2:74).

The amazing thing is that this idea of being married in heaven clearly contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus rebuked the Sadducees because they

were making up a silly situation, assuming that there was marriage in heaven, when in fact there was no such thing.

{31} But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, {32} I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. {33} And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Besides not believing in a resurrection, the Sadducees also believed that only the first five books of Moses were inspired. They did not believe in the inspiration of the prophets, the Psalms, the history books, etc. When Jesus quotes the Scriptures for the Sadducees (“I am the God of Abraham …”), He quotes from Exodus 3:6, from one of the books that they accept. God had told Moses that He iscurrently the God of Abraham. If there was no resurrection, God would have told Moses, “I WAS the

God of Abraham” since Abraham had long been dead at Moses’ time.

Jesus told the Sadducees that they were mistaken in their ideas because they were

unfamiliar with the Scriptures and unfamiliar with the true power of God.

Lesson

The Word and Power

If you want to stay on track with what you believe, you need to know both God’s Word and His Power.

The Sadducees didn’t know God’s Word, and so they came up with some silly notions about heaven.

Instead of basing their belief system on something authoritative, like God’s Word, they based their belief system on what they thought heaven was

like.

The other day Larry King had Deepak Chopra on with a Rabbi, John MacArthur, and

Bruce Wilkinson. Both Mr. Chopra and the Rabbi talked about how they did not believe

in hell because they could not believe that God would make such a place nor send people

there. John’s response was that it really didn’t make any difference what they believed.

What counted was what God has told us.

Dave Ritner shared an illustration a few weeks ago – suppose I had your gas tank drained

of gas and told you so, but you chose not to believe me. Suppose you go to your car to

start it up, and the fuel gage reads “Empty”, but you choose instead to believe that there is

gas in your tank. If you were even able to start the car, would you get very far just by

“believing” there was gas in the tank when in fact there was none? Believing just for the

sake of believing will get you nowhere. God asks you to believe in Him, not because

He’ll disappear if you don’t, but because He is real and you need Him and you need to

follow Him.

The fact is, God has told us about Himself. The Bible is authoritative. We have proof of the Bible’s validity through the hundreds of specific

prophecies that have already been fulfilled. God has spoken. We ought to pay attention. Don’t base your beliefs upon what you think, be sure to

find out what God says.

The Sadducees didn’t know God’s power, and this too affected their beliefs.

They did not understand God’s power, so when it came to the topic of something like raising someone from the dead, they couldn’t comprehend it.

Illustration

Hundreds of years ago, the king of Siam was visited by the Dutch ambassador. The

ambassador told the king about his country and how in cold weather the water became so

hard that men walked on it and it would bear an elephant. The king replied, “Hitherto I

have believed the strange things you told me, because I looked upon you as a sober fair

man; but now I am sure you lie.”

The king of Siam had a hard time believing there were such a thing as ice because he had

never experienced it. But is there such a thing as ice? Yes.

How much of the world’s knowledge do you suppose you have acquired? If you walk into

a huge college library, how many of the books do you think you could have written? Is it

possible that God might actually exist and function outside of your very, very small grasp

of the universe?

Be careful about limiting what you think God can do based upon your limited understanding.

(Jer 32:27 KJV) Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

:6 that his name be not put out of Israel.

This was the purpose behind the law, to keep the family line of the

brother going and to keep the property within the family. The firstborn

son would receive his inheritance from the dead brother’s estate.

Lesson

Marrying a family

If you were about to married under these laws of Israel, I think you’d want to pay attention to who your in-laws were. If you were a gal marrying a guy, you’d probably want to make sure you could stand his brother (if he had any). If you were a guy and your brother was getting married, you’d probably want to make sure that he marries a nice gal. After all, you may get stuck with her.

When you marry a person, there is a sense that you are gaining a new family, your spouse’s.

Illustration

The Wisdom of Solomon

Two women came before wise King Solomon, dragging between them a young man in a three-piece suit. “This young CPA agreed to marry my

daughter,” said one. “�o! He agreed to marry MY daughter,” said the other. And so they haggled before the King, until he called for silence.

“Bring me my biggest sword,” said Solomon,” and I shall hew the young accountant in half. Each of you shall receive a half.” “Sounds good to

me,” said the first lady. But the other woman said, “Oh Sire, do not spill innocent blood. Let the other woman’s daughter marry him.” The wise

king did not hesitate a moment. “The accountant must marry the first lady’s daughter,” he proclaimed. “But she was willing to hew him in two!”

exclaimed the king’s court. “Indeed,” said wise King Solomon. “That shows she is the TRUE mother-in-law.”

I’ve heard a person say to their spouse, “I married you, not your mother”. Then they will proceed to alienate their spouse from their mother or other family members. There is a point where this is completely appropriate since we are to “leave” our parents’ influence and “cleave” to our spouse. But I’ve also seen a type of abuse over the years where one spouse works hard to alienate their spouse from their family.

I think when a couple marry, there’s a fine line they need to walk where they on one hand “leave” the influence of their family, yet on the other

hand they need to continue to show love and respect toward their family as well.

:9 loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face

loose his shoe from off his foot – This act signified that he had

abandoned his duty. It was a kind of sign of degradation, as if the man

was becoming poorer by having to go barefoot. The city officials would

keep the sandal as evidence of the transaction.

spit in his face – A sign of contempt.

:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of

him that hath his shoe loosed.

or, bayith chalotz hana’al

We see this played out in the book of Ruth. A man named Elimelech

took his wife and two sons and went to the land of Moab to ride out a

time of famine. While there, his boys married two Moabite girls. As the

famine got worse, Elimelech and his sons all died. His name was going

to be cut off. The family tree had been cut down.

When Elimelech’s wife �aomi went back home to Bethlehem, she was

surprised when her daughter-in-law, the Moabitess Ruth, went with

her. We begin to see the levirate law come into play as they run into a

relative named Boaz, and he falls in love with Ruth.

(Ruth 4:1-8 KJV) Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. {2} And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. {3} And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's: {4} And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it.

There is another law coming into play here, the law of the Kinsman Redeemer (Lev. 25:25). When a relative went into debt, it was the obligation of the nearest kinsman to help out, to buy the farm and keep the property in the family. Boaz has now approached the one relative that was closer to Elimelech than he was, and giving him the first shot at helping the family.

{5} Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise

up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.

Here we see Boaz now invoking the Levirate Law, requiring the near kinsman not only to buy the land, but take Ruth to be his wife and raise up an inheritance for Elimelech. It was a package deal.

{6} And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.

The other kinsman didn’t mind acquiring the land, but when he saw that it came with a wife attached, he was quick to back out. Perhaps he was married, and his own wife wasn’t too excited about the situation!

{7} Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel. {8} Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.

It seems that by Ruth’s time, the shoe bit had lost some of its meaning. We also see another part of the ritual has dropped off, Ruth was supposed to spit in the face of the one rejecting her.

Lesson

Responsibility for family

One of the great principles we see in Scripture is that we need to learn to take responsibility for our families. The early church had a program to take care of the needs of widows, but they did not help widows who had family that could take care of them:

(1 Tim 5:3,4,8 KJV) Honour widows that are widows indeed. {4} But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. D{8} But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

The whole point of the Levirate law was to say, “Take care of your family”.

Lesson

Jesus

Why is all this important? What’s the big deal with this “Levirate Law”?

First, God is showing how He honors those who take care of their families. God blessed Ruth because she was willing to take care of her mother-

in-law �aomi. God blessed Boaz because he was willing to obey this Levirate law and marry Ruth.

More importantly, it all leads to Jesus.

(Ruth 4:17 KJV) And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Boaz and Ruth both showed honor to their family, and they were the great-grandparents

of King David, from whom came Jesus.

Jesus too is an example of honoring family. We are His family. He laid down His life by dying on a cross and take the punishment for our sins.

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.

1. Gill, “And it shall be that the firstborn that she beareth,.... To her husband's brother, now married to her:

shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead; the meaning is, as the Targum of Jonathan,"he shall rise up in the inheritance in the name of his brother;''or, as Jarchi expresses it,"he shall take the inheritance of the deceased in the goods of his father;''that is, he shall have his part and share in the inheritance that the deceased brother would have had if he had lived, which would come to him by his father:

that his name be not put out of Israel; that the family be not lost in Israel, and the inheritance belonging to it pass to another. This law was designed to keep families distinct, and inheritances in them, until the Messiah came, and that it might appear from what family he came; as he did from one in whom, as it is generally thought, this law took place: and it might have still a more special respect to him, as Ainsworth suggests; for Christ in the mystical sense may be signified by the deceased brother; he stands in the relation of a brother to his people, and has all the love, friendship, compassion, and condescension of one; he and they are of one and the same father, of the same family, and of the same nature, and have the same inheritance they being co-heirs with him; nor is he ashamed to own the relation. This brother of theirs is deceased; his death was according to the will of God, what he himself agreed to, and was foretold by the prophets; for which purpose he came into the world, and did die as to the flesh,

and that for the sins of his people. Now the Jewish church was his wife, by whom he had no children through the law; that church was espoused to him, he stood in the relation of an husband to her, and she in the relation of a wife to him. Very few children were brought forth by her to him, see, Isa_54:1; and none by the law, by which there is no regeneration, but by the Gospel; it is through that, and not the law, the Spirit and his graces come; or souls are born again to Christ, renewed and sanctified. The apostles that survived Christ, and the ministers of the Gospel, are his brethren, Joh_20:17; and who are instruments in begetting souls to Christ; and these are a seed raised up unto him, and are called not after the name of the apostles and ministers of the word, through whose ministry they are begotten, 1Co_1:12; but after Christ; and have the name of Christians, or anointed ones, from him, and by which means his name is, and will be continued as long as the sun endures, Act_11:26.

2. EBC, "There remains for consideration, however, a marriage which the Deuteronomist permits, which seems to run counter to all the finer feelings and instincts of his later time. It is dealt with in Deu_25:5-10, and is notable because it is a clear breach of the definite rule that a man should not marry his deceased brother’s wife. But it will be obvious at once that the permission of this marriage stands upon quite a different footing from the prohibition. It is permitted only in a special case for definite ends; and while the sanction of the prohibition is the infliction of childlessness, (Lev_20:21) the man who refuses to enter upon marriage with his deceased brother’s wife is punished only by being put to shame by her before the elders of his city. We have not here, therefore, a law in the strict sense. It is only a recognition of a very ancient custom which is not yet abolished, though evidently public feeling was beginning to make light of the obligation. Its place in the twenty-fifth chapter, away from the marriage laws, (which are given in Deu_21:10 ff., Deu_22:13 ff., and Deu_24:1-4) and among duties of kindness, seems to hint this, and we may consequently take the law as a concession. That the custom was ancient in the time of Deuteronomy may be gathered from the fact that in Hebrew there is a special technical term, yibbem, for entering on such a marriage. The probability is, indeed, that levirate marriage was a pre-Mosaic custom connected with ancestor-worship. It certainly is practiced by many other races, e.g., the Hindus and Persians, whose religions can be traced to that source. Under that system, it was necessary that the male line of descent should be kept up in order that the ancestral sacrifices might be continued, and to bear the expense of this the property of the brother dying childless was jealously preserved. In India, at present, both purposes are served by adoption, either by the childless man or by the widow. In earlier times, when fatherhood was to a large extent a merely juridical relationship, when, that is to say, it was a common thing for a man to accept as his son any child born of women under his control, whether he were the father or not, the same end was also attained by this marriage. Originating in this way, the practice was carried over into the Israelite social life when it changed its form, and the motives for it were then brought into line with the new and higher religion. The motive of keeping alive the name and memory of the childless man was substituted for that of securing the continuance of his worship; and the purpose of securing the permanence of property, landed property especially, in each household, was substituted for that of supplying means for the sacrifice. Later, the motive connected with the transmission of property possibly became the main one. For, since the levirate marriage came in, according to the strict wording of our passage, whenever a man died without a son, whether he had daughters or not, this marriage would seem to have been an alternative means of keeping the property in the family to that of letting the daughters inherit. But the spirit of the higher religion, as well as a more advanced

civilization, was unfavorable to it. The custom evidently was withering when Deuteronomy was written, though in Judaism it was not disallowed till post-Talmudic times.

The impression, therefore, which the laws and customs regulating the relations of men and women in Israel give to the candid student must be pronounced to be a strangely mixed one. It would probably not be too much to say that it is at first a deeply disappointing one. We have been accustomed to fill all the Old Testament utterances on this subject with the suffused light of Gospel precept and example, till we have lost sight of the lower elements undeniably present in the Old Testament laws and ideas concerning purity. But that is no longer possible. Whether of enmity or of zeal for the truth, these less worthy elements have been dragged forth into the broad light of day, and in that light we are called upon to readjust our thoughts so as to accept and account for them. Evidently at the beginning the Israelite tribes accepted the uncivilized idea of woman. On that as a basis, however, customs and laws regarding chastity, marriage, and divorce were adopted, which transcended and passed beyond that fundamental idea. The moral complicity of woman, or her innocence, in cases where her chastity had been attacked, came to be taken into account. Polygamy, though never forbidden, received grievous wounds from prophets and others of the sacred writers; and as marriage with one became more and more the ideal, the higher teachers of the people kept the indissolubleness of marriage before the public mind, till Malachi denounced divorce in Yahweh’s name. In regard to the bars to marriage there was little change, probably, from the days of Moses; but the old family rules were reinforced by a deep and delicate regard for even the less palpable affections and relations which grew up in the home.

The final attainment, therefore, was great and worthy enough; but the cruder and less refined ideas, which had been inherited from pre-Mosaic custom, always make themselves felt, and have even dominated some of the laws. They dominated, even more, the practice of the people and the theory of the scribes; so that on the very eve of His coming who was to proclaim decisively the indissolubility of marriage, the great Jewish schools were wrangling whether mere caprice, or some immodesty only could justify divorce. Nevertheless the Decalogue, with its deep and broad command, culminating in prohibition even of inward evil desire, had always had its own influence. The teachings of the prophets, which breathe passionate hatred of impurity, had I taught all men of good-will in Israel that the wrath of God surely burned against it But the stamp of imperfection was upon Old Testament teaching here as elsewhere. Like the Messianic hope, like the future of Israel, like all Israel’s greatest destinies, the promise of a higher life in this respect was darkened by the inconsistencies of general practice; and uncertainty prevailed as to the direction in which men were to look for the harmonious development of the higher potencies which were making their presence felt. It was in them rather than in the law, in the ideals rather than in the practice of the people, that the hidden power was silently doing its regenerating work. The religion of Yahweh in its central content surrounded all laws and institutions with an atmosphere which challenged and furthered growth of every wholesome kind. The axe and hammer of the legislative builder was rarely heard at work; but in the silence which seems to some so barren, there slowly grew a fabric of moral and spiritual ideas and aspirations, which needed only the coming of Christ to make it the permanent home of all morally earnest souls.

With Him all that the past generations "had willed, or hoped, or dreamed of good" came actually to exist. He made what had been aspiration only the basis of an actual Kingdom of God. As one of its primary moral foundations He laid down the radical indissolubility of marriage, and made visible to all men, the breadth of the law given in the Decalogue

by forbidding even wandering desires. In doing this He completely surpassed all Old Testament teaching, and set up a standard which Christian communities as such have held to hitherto, but which from lack of elevation and earnestness they seem inclined in these days to let slip. That such a standard was ever set up was the work of a Divine revelation of a perfectly unique kind, working through long ages of upward movement. Humanity has been dragged upwards to it most unwillingly. Men have found difficulty in living at that height, and nothing is easier than to throw away all the gain of these many centuries. All that is needed is a plunge or two downwards. But if ever these plunges are taken, the long, slow effort upwards will only have to be begun again, if family life is to be firmly established, and purity is to become a permanent possession of men.

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."

1. Gill, “ And the man like not to take his brother's wife,.... The provision here made by this law, when this was the case, is such as did not take place before it became a law; for then Onan would have taken the advantage of it, and refused marrying his brother's wife, which it is plain was not agreeable to him, Gen_38:9; as many do now on one account or another. Leo of Modena (l) says,"it was anciently accounted the more laudable thing to take her, than to release her; but now the corruption of the times, and the hardness of men's hearts, are such, as that they only look after worldly ends, either of riches, or of the beauty of the woman; so that there are very few that in this case will marry a brother's widow, especially among the Dutch and Italian Jews, but they always release her:"

then let his brother's wife go up to the gate; to the gate of the city, where the judges sit for public affairs; to the gate of the sanhedrim, or court of judicature, as the Targum of Jonathan; and this affair was cognizable by the bench of three judges, and might be dispatched by them; for so it is said (m),"the plucking off the shoe, and the refusal of marriage, are by three:''i.e. three judges, which was the lowest court of judicature with the Jews:

unto the elders, and say; which according to the above Targum were to be five wise men, of which three were to be judges, and two witnesses; and she was to say in the Hebrew language, in which, according to the Misnah (n), she was to pronounce what follows:

my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother; that is, in a few words, he will not marry her.

2. Henry, “ He shall not be compelled to do it, Deu_25:7. If he like her not, he is at liberty to refuse her, which, some think, was not permitted in this case before this law of Moses. Affection is all in all to the comfort of the conjugal relation; this is a thing which cannot be forced, and therefore the relation should not be forced without it. (2.) Yet he shall be publicly disgraced for not doing it. The widow, as the person most concerned for the name and honour of the deceased, was to complain to the elders of his refusal; if he persist in it, she must pluck off his shoe, and spit in his face, in open court (or, as the Jewish doctors moderate it, spit before his face), thus to fasten a mark of infamy upon him, which was to remain with his family after him, Deu_25:8-10.

3. PULPIT COMMENTARY 7-10, "If the man refused to marry the widow of his

deceased brother, he was free to do so; but the woman had her redress. She was to bring

the matter before the eiders of the town, sitting as magistrates at the gate, and they were

to summon the man and speak to him, and if he persisted in his refusal, the woman was to

take his shoe from off his foot, and spit before his face, and say, So shall it be done unto

that man that will not build up his brother's house. The taking off of the shoe of the man

by the woman was an act of indignity to him; it amounted to a declaration that he was not

worthy to stand in his brother's place, and was scornfully rejected by the woman herself.

As the planting of the shod foot on a piece of property, or the casting of the shoe over a

field, was emblematical of taking possession of it with satisfaction (Psalms 60:8; Psalms

108:9); and as the voluntary handing of one's shoe to another betokened the giving up to

that other of some property or right; so, contrariwise, the forcible removal from one of his

shoe and the casting of it aside indicated contemptuous rejection of the owner, and

repudiation of all his rights and claims in the matter. To walk barefooted was regarded by

the Jews as ignominious and miserable (cf. Isaiah 20:2, Isaiah 20:4; 2 Samuel 15:30). The

spitting before the face of the man ( ְּבָפנַיו in front of him) is by the Jewish interpreters

understood of spitting on the ground in his presence. This seems to be what the words

express (cf. Deuteronomy 4:37; Deuteronomy 7:24; Deuteronomy 11:25; Joshua 10:8;

Ezekiel 10:8, for the rendering of בפני ); and this, according to Oriental notions, would be

insult enough (cf. Numbers 12:14; Isaiah 1:6; Niebuhr, ' Description de l'Arabie,' 1.49).

4.PETER PETTIT, "It was always open to the brother to refuse, although that was looked

on with disapproval. The widow could then go to the city elders as they sat and conferred

in the gate area, and inform them that the brother refused to maintain his deceased

brother’s name in Israel by bearing children in his name, that he refused to perform ‘the

duty of a husband’s brother’.

It should be noted that while in this case it is the widow taking the initiative, that might

not always be the case. Sometimes it would be the family who urged it on the widow. We

only hear of the cases where difficulties arose. But it was certainly to the widow’s

advantage, for then her son would inherit his father’s land and she would, along with him,

have a good level of independence. Not that all widows became totally dependent on

others. Quite apart from the issue of the land, she might have inherited wealth from her

husband, and even have had lands of her own (Numbers 27:8-11). Note that the land did

not immediately pass into someone else’s possession. Time was clearly allowed for her to

achieve a Levirate marriage and have a son.

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,"

1. Gill, “Then the elders of his city shall call him,.... Require him to come, before them, and declare his resolution, and the reasons for it; recite this law to him, and explain the nature of it, and exhort him to comply with it, or show reason why he does not, at least to have his final resolution upon it:

and speak unto him; talk with him upon this subject, and give him their best advice; and what that was Maimonides (o) more particularly informs us; if it is good and advisable to marry, they advise him to marry; but if it is better advice to pluck off the shoe, they give it; as when she is young and he is old, or she is old and he young, they advise him to allow the shoe to be plucked off:

and if he stand to it: and say, I like not to take her; if, after all the conversation, debate, and counsel between them, he is resolute, and abides by his first determination, that he will not marry her, then the following method was to be taken.

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."

1. Gill, “Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders,.... The time and place being appointed the evening before by three Rabbins, and two witnesses, as Leo of Modena says (p); of which she was apprized, and ordered to come tasting:

and loose his shoe from off his foot; his right foot, which was thus done;"they bring him a leather shoe, which has a heel, but not sewed with linen (linen thread), and he puts it on the right foot, and binds the latchet on his foot, and stands, he and she, in the court; he fixes his foot on the ground, and she sits and stretches out her hand in the court, and looses the latchet of his shoe from off his foot, and pulls off his shoe, and casts it to the ground (q):''this he suffered to be done to show that he gave up his right to her; and he was so used by way of reproach, to signify that he deserved not to be reckoned among freemen, but among servants and slaves, that went barefooted, having no shoes on: and in the mystical sense of it, as Ainsworth observes, it spiritually signified, that such as would not beget children unto Christ (or preach his Gospel for that purpose), it should be declared of them that their feet are not shod with the preparation of the Gospel of Christ, Eph_6:15,

and spit in his face; in a way of contempt, as a token of shame and disgrace; but the Jewish writers generally interpret this in a softer manner, as if it was not in his face, but in his presence, upon the floor, and seen by the judges (r):

and shall answer and say, so shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother's house; that is, in this contemptuous and shameful manner shall he be used.

2. PETER PETIT, "The elders of the city were then to add their weight behind the

widow’s plea. This was something to be favoured by all. But if the brother still declared

his intention of not fulfilling the responsibility it was accepted, but it was made quite

clear to the brother that his failure to honour his brother was not appreciated.

His brother’s wife was to come to him in the presence of the elders, loose and take of one

of his sandals, and spit in his face, saying ‘so shall it be done to the man who does not

build up his brother’s house’.

The loosing of the sandal may have indicated that he could be no longer seen as having a

comfortable path ahead. His future prospects had been damaged. Or it may have been

indicating that he had now lost his authority over anything that she possessed, which he

would otherwise have benefited by. She was now free from his authority, and was no

longer ‘under his feet’ (compare Psalms 8:6). Or it may have indicated loss of possession

of the land, which he could no longer tread on. The case of Naomi indicated that property

did not automatically pass to the nearest relative on death but went with the widow. Thus

Numbers 27:8-11 might have been dependent on the right treatment of the widow.

Spitting in the face was an indication of derision and disrespect (Numbers 12:14; Job

30:10). He was revealed as having failed in his duty.

10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The

Family of the Unsandaled.

1. Gill, “And his name shall be called in Israel,.... Not his particular and personal name, but his family; for it seems that not only a mark of infamy was set upon him for refusing to marry his brother's widow, but upon his family also:

the house of him that hath his shoe loosed; which, as Leo of Modena says (s), was repeated by her three times; and at every time the people with a loud voice answer and call him, one that had his shoe loosed; and then the Rabbin tells the man that he is at liberty now to marry whom he pleases; and if he desires a certificate from them of this setting free his kinswoman, they presently give him one; and she also had a writing given to her by the judges, certifying the same, that she was free also to marry another; of which the following is a short form or copy (t)."In such or such a session (or court), such an one, the daughter of such an one, plucked off the shoe of such an one, the son of such an one, before us; she brought him before us, and she loosed the shoe of his right foot, and spit before him spittle, which was seen by us upon the ground; and said, so shall it be done to the man that would not build up his brother's house.''A larger form may be seen in Maimonides (u), as well as a type and copy of the matrimonial contract. From this law an high priest was free, Lev_21:14; and so a king, according to the Jewish canon (w).

2. PETER PETTIT, "From then on his reputation would be tarnished. His house

would be known as “The house of him who has his shoe loosed.” He had broken up

the family unity, and divided the family. Instead of maintaining his brother’s name,

he had tarnished his own. To be shoeless was for an Israelite a sign of indignity

(Isaiah 20:2-3).

While the incident in Ruth 4 illuminates what happened here the circumstances

were somewhat different and illustrate the complications of succession law about

which we would be wise not to dogmatise. There the responsibility of the kinsman

redeemer was in mind, not that of the brother. But it still had to do with retaining

land in the wider family.

A Woman Shall �ot Touch The Private Parts of a Man Who Is �ot Her Husband.

In the last regulation the ability of a deceased brother to produce children through a

dutiful brother and wife was maintained. We are probably to see here the opposite

case. The ability of a man to produce is destroyed by a revengeful woman. Whereas

the last regulation would bring the woman praise, this would bring her humiliation

and mutilation, for her aim was exactly the opposite.

3. CATHERS, “We see this played out in the book of Ruth when Boaz wants to take Ruth for his wife, fulfilling the levirate law, and there is another kinsman who agrees to not marry Ruth.

• (Ruth 4:1-8 KJV) Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down. {2} And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down. {3} And he said unto the kinsman, Naomi, that is come again out of the country of Moab, selleth a parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech's: {4} And I thought to advertise thee, saying, Buy it before the inhabitants, and before the elders of my people. If thou wilt redeem it, redeem it: but if thou wilt not redeem it, then tell me, that I may know: for there is none to redeem it beside thee; and I am after thee. And he said, I will redeem it. {5} Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. {6} And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it. {7} Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel. {8} Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.

• The kinsman didn’t mind acquiring the land, but when he saw that it came with a wife attached, he was quick to back out. Perhaps his own wife wasn’t too excited about the situation!

• It seems that by Ruth’s time, the shoe bit wasn’t seen as something to be ashamed of, almost as if they had lost the meaning of the ritual.

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,

1. Gill, “When men strive together, one with another,.... Quarrel with one another, and come to blows, and strive for mastery, which shall beat, and be the best man:

and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him; perceiving that his antagonist has more skill or strength, or both, for fighting, and is an more than a match for her husband, who is like to be much bruised and hurt; wherefore, to save him out of the hands of the smiter, she goes up to them to part them, or take her husband's side:

and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets; or privy parts; in Hebrew his "shameful" parts (x), which through shame are hidden, and modesty forbids to express in proper terms; and such is the purity of the Hebrew language, that no obscene words are used in it; for which reason, among others, it is called the holy tongue. This immodest action was done partly out of affection to her husband, to oblige his antagonist to let go his hold of him; and partly out of malice and revenge to him, to spoil him, and make him unfit for generation, and therefore was to be severely punished, as follows.

2. K&D, ““But in order that the great independence which is here accorded to a childless widow in relation to her brother-in-law, might not be interpreted as a false freedom granted to the female sex” (Baumgarten), the law is added immediately afterwards, that a woman whose husband was quarrelling with another, and who should come to his assistance by laying hold of the secret parts of the man who was striking her husband, should have her hand cut off.

3. CALVI�, "This Law is apparently harsh, but its severity skews how very

pleasing to God is modesty, whilst, on the other hand, He abominates indecency; for,

if in the heat of a quarrel, when the agitation of the mind is an excuse for excesses, it

was a crime thus heavily punished, for a woman to take hold of the private parts of

a man who was not her husband, much less would God have her lasciviousness

pardoned, if a woman were impelled by lust to do anything of the sort. �either can

we doubt but that the judges, in punishing obscenity, were bound to argue from the

less to the greater. A threat is also added, lest the severity of the punishment should

influence their minds to be tender and remiss ill inflicting it. It was indeed

inexcusable effrontery, willfully to assail that part of the body, from the sight and

touch of which all chaste women naturally recoil.

4. GUZIK, “(11-12) Wives forbidden to interfere in their husband's fights.

a. Why such a severe punishment? "Possibly it was representative of similar offences 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)

b. "Partly because of the great mischief she did to him, both to his person and posterity, and partly to deter all women from immodest and impudent carriages, and to secure that modesty which is indeed the guardian of all the virtues, as immodesty is an inlet to all vices, as the sad experience of this degenerate age shows; and therefore it is not strange that it is so severely restrained and punished." (Matthew Poole, 1683)

5. PETER PETTIT, "This rather unusual case may simply refer to a gross lack of decency,

a woman deliberately and inexcusably taking a man’s private parts in her hand. This

would undoubtedly have been looked on with horror as being something against all

decency. But it may well refer to something more significant, the fact that what she did

was with the intention of deliberately making the man unable to bear children, possibly by

her crushing his private parts (compare Deuteronomy 23:1). She was preventing the

fulfilment of God’s command to ‘go forth and multiply’ and removing him from the

assembly of Yahweh. This latter would explain the seriousness of the penalty, which was

unquestionably intended to ensure that such a thing never happened. This is the only

place in the Old Testament where mutilation is seemingly specifically prescribed as a

punishment because of the dreadful mutilation that she caused, although it was assumed

in the lex talionis as the ultimate measure.

Thus she would never again be able to caress her husband. Indeed the ‘cutting off’ of the

‘hand’ may actually refer to some action which also made it impossible for her to

conceive, cutting off her ability to bear children in retaliation for her act of preventing the

man having children, which would be seen as fulfilling the law of lex talionis (an eye for

an eye). ‘Hand’ is sometimes used as a euphemism for the sexual organ, and the word

used for ‘hand’ in verse 12 differs from that for ‘hand’ in Deuteronomy 25:11 suggesting

that some distinction might be made. But the mutilation itself, in retaliation for the

mutilation she had caused, would be a constant proclamation of what kind of woman she

was. It would be her greatest shame.

12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

1. Barnes, “This is the only mutilation prescribed by the Law of Moses, unless we except the retaliation prescribed as a punishment for the infliction on another of bodily injuries

Lev_24:19-20. The act in question was probably not rare in the times and countries for which the Law of Moses was designed. It is of course to be understood that the act was willful, and that the prescribed punishment would be inflicted according to the sentence of the judges.

2. Gill, “Then thou shall cut off her hand,.... Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate. Our Lord is thought to refer to this law, Mat_5:30; though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it; so Jarchi; and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, "eye for eye", Exo_21:24; which they commonly understand of paying a price for the both, &c. lost; and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:

thine eye shall not pity her; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.

13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag--

one heavy, one light.

1. Barnes, “Honesty in trade, as a duty to our neighbor, is emphatically enforced once more (compare Lev_19:35-36). It is noteworthy that John the Baptist puts the like duties in the forefront of his preaching (compare Luk_3:12 ff); and that “the prophets” (compare Eze_45:10-12; Amo_8:5; Mic_6:10-11) and “the Psalms” Pro_16:11; Pro_20:10, Pro_20:23, not less than “the Law,” especially insist on them.

Divers weights - i. e. stones of unequal weights, the lighter to sell with, the heavier to buy with. Stones were used by the Jews instead of brass or lead for their weights, as less liable to lose anything through rust or wear.

2. Clarke, “Divers weights - eben�vaaben, a stone and a stone, because the ואבןאבןweights 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 Lev_19:35, Lev_19:36.

3. Gill, “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights,.... Or, "a stone and a stone" (y); it being usual, in those times and countries, to have their weights of stone, as it was formerly with us here; we still say, that such a commodity is worth so much per stone, a stone being of such a weight; now these were not to be different:

a great and a small; great weights, to buy with them, and small weights, to sell with them, as the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it.

4. Henry, “Here is, I. A law against deceitful weights and measures: they must not only not use them, but they must not have them, not have them in the bag, not have them in the house (Deu_25:13, Deu_25:14); for, if they had them, they would be strongly tempted to use them. They must not have a great weight and measure to buy by and a small one to sell by, for that was to cheat both ways, when either was bad enough; as we read of those that made the ephah small, in which they measured the corn they sold, and the shekel great, by which they weighed the money they received for it, Amo_8:5. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, v. 15. That which is the rule of justice must itself be just; if that be otherwise, it is a constant cheat. This had been taken care of before, Lev_19:35, Lev_19:36. This law is enforced with two very good reasons: - 1. That justice and equity will bring down upon us the blessing of God. The way to have our days lengthened, and to prosper, is to be just and fair in all our dealings Honesty is the best policy. 2. That fraud and injustice will expose us to the curse of God, Deu_25:16. Not only unrighteousness itself, but all that do unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord. And miserable is that man who is abhorred by his Maker. How hateful, particularly, all the arts of deceit are to God, Solomon several times observes, Pro_11:1; Pro_20:10, Pro_20:23; and the apostle tells us that the Lord is the avenger of all suchas overreach and defraud in any matter, 1Th_4:6.

II. A law for the rooting out of Amalek. Here is a just weight and a just measure, that, as Amalek had measured to Israel, so it should be measure to Amalek again.

1. The mischief Amalek did to Israel must be here remembered, Deu_25:17, Deu_25:18. When it was first done it was ordered to be recorded (Exo_17:14-16), and here the remembrance of it is ordered to be preserved, not in personal revenge (for that generation which suffered by the Amalekites was gone, so that those who now lived, and their posterity, could not have any personal resentment of the injury), but in a zeal for the glory of God (which was insulted by the Amalekites), that throne of the Lord against which the hand of Amalek was stretched out. The carriage of the Amalekites towards Israel is here represented, (1.) As very base and disingenuous. They had no occasion at all to quarrel with Israel, nor did they give them any notice, by a manifesto or declaration of war; but took them at an advantage, when they had just come out of the house of bondage, and, for aught that appeared to them, were only going to sacrifice to

God in the wilderness. (2.) As very barbarous and cruel; for they smote those that were more feeble, whom they should have succoured. The greatest cowards are commonly the most cruel; while those that have the courage of a man will have the compassion of a man. (3.) As very impious and profane: they feared not God. If they had had any reverence for the majesty of the God of Israel, which they saw a token of in the cloud, or any dread of his wrath, which they lately heard of the power of over Pharaoh, they durst not have made this assault upon Israel. Well, here was the ground of the quarrel: and it shows how God takes what is done against his people as done against himself, and that he will particularly reckon with those that discourage and hinder young beginners in religion, that (as Satan's agents) set upon the weak and feeble, either to divert them or to disquiet them, and offend his little ones.2. This mischief must in due time be revenged, Deu_25:19. When their wars were finished, by which they were to settle their kingdom and enlarge their coast, then they must make war upon Amalek (Deu_25:19), not merely to chase them, but to consume them, to blot out the remembrance of Amalek. It was an instance of God's patience that he deferred the vengeance so long, which should have led the Amalekites to repentance; yet an instance of fearful retribution that the posterity of Amalek, so long after, were destroyed for the mischief done by their ancestors to the Israel of God, that all the world might see, and say, that he who toucheth them toucheth the apple of his eye. It was nearly 400 years after this that Saul was ordered to put this sentence in execution (1 Sa. 15), and was rejected of God because he did not do it effectually, but spared some of that devoted nation, in contempt, not only of the particular orders he received from Samuel, but of this general command here given by Moses, which he could not be ignorant of. David afterwards made some destruction of them; and the Simeonites, in Hezekiah's time, smote the rest that remained (1Ch_4:43); for when God judges he will overcome.

5. Jamison, “Thou shalt not have ... divers weights— Weights were anciently made of stone and are frequently used still by Eastern shopkeepers and traders, who take them out of the bag and put them in the balance. The man who is not cheated by the trader and his bag of divers weights must be blessed with more acuteness than most of his fellows [Roberts]. (Compare Pro_16:11; Pro_20:10).

6. K&D, “The duty of integrity in trade is once more enforced in Deu_25:13-16 (as in Lev_19:35-36). “Stone and stone,” i.e., two kinds of stones for weighing (cf. Psa_12:3), viz., large ones for buying and small ones for selling. On the promise in Deu_25:15, see Deu_4:26; Deu_5:16; Deu_25:16, as in Deu_22:5; Deu_18:12, etc. In the concluding words, Deu_25:16, “all that do unrighteously,” Moses sums up all breaches of the law.

7. CATHERS, “This has to do with measuring stuff. If you have a balance scale, you’d set a weight on one side, and pour whatever you were measuring on the other side until the scale balanced. If you had two different "weights" that were both supposedly one pound, and you were a sneaking thief, you would use the smaller weight for selling things and a larger weight for buying things. You could really make out that way.

8. PULPIT COMMENTARY, "Morality in trade.

The Hebrew lawgiver lays just stress on honesty in weights and measures. The general

principle is that of honesty in trade. Weights and measures connect themselves intimately

with the ideas of justice, rectitude, impartiality. Justice is represented by a figure with

scales and weights. Falsification of weights and measures is thus a representative sin, one

which corrupts integrity in man with peculiar and fatal rapidity.

I. AN INJUNCTION MUCH NEEDED. Trade morality is at present at a low ebb. Mixed

up with the thousands of honest transactions which no doubt take place every day, there

must be admitted to be an enormous number which are more or less fraudulent. "On the

average," says Mr. Spencer, "men who deal in bales and tons differ but little in morality

from men who deal in yards and pounds. Illicit practices of every form and shade, from

venial deception up to all but direct theft, may be brought home to the higher grades of

the commercial world. Tricks innumerable, lies acted or uttered, elaborately devised

frauds, are prevalent—many of them established as 'customs of the trade;' nay, not only

established, but defended" ('Essays,' vol. 2; 'Morals of Trade;' cf. Smiles on 'Duty,'

Deuteronomy 3:1-29.). The saddest feature in the outlook is the apparent prevalence of

the feeling that trickery of this kind is absolutely essential to success—that a man can't

get on without it.

II. AN INJUNCTION WHICH OUGHT TO BE ENFORCED. But how? By a fearless

exposure of dishonesties, and by a loud and firm demand on the part of every upright

member of society for honest and truthful dealing. Only if the dishonest are a majority in

society—a majority of overwhelming numbers—can they ultimately prevail against the

honest. A determined combination on the part of persons of integrity would suffice to put

them down. The man known to be honest should be supported, even at some pecuniary

sacrifice. Custom should be unflinchingly withdrawn from men detected in tricks, and the

stamp of public reprobation placed on such men and their doings. Means should be taken

to diffuse information as to the arts and frauds by which dishonesty sustains itself. The

causes of these dishonesties need also to be looked into—chiefly, according to Spencer,

the indiscriminate respect paid to wealth. Love of the honor and position which wealth

gives—the certainty of being looked up to, courted in society, applauded for success, with

few questions asked,—this is the tap-root of the evil, and it is to be cured by

distinguishing between wealth and character, and by honoring the former only when in

alliance with the latter.

III. AN INJUNCTION WHICH IT IS EVERY ONE'S INTEREST TO ENFORCE. Trade

dishonesty should, if possible, be checked:

1. In view of its inherent immorality. Nothing can be more despicable, more mean and

disgraceful, than the lies, frauds, briberies, malpractices, adulterations, which, if the

witnesses are to be trusted, abound in all branches of trade. These things are a blot on our

country, the shame of which touches all.

2. In view of its corrupting effect on morals generally. Its influence spreads beyond itself.

It saps principle, eats out faith in virtue, unfits the individual for every moral task.

3. In view of its effects on national prosperity. These are ruinous. God's displeasure rests

on the nation, and he is certain to chastise it. But the sorest whip he uses to chastise it is

the scourge of its own follies. Our dishonesties lose us (are actually losing us) our

markets; lower us in the eyes of foreign nations; destroy credit; engender a spirit of

general distrust; still worse, by undermining principle, they destroy the power of steady

application to work, and increasingly substitute the motives of the gambler for those of

the merchant content with lawful gains. The inevitable end is impoverishment and

disgrace.

4. As a measure of self-protection. Each individual suffers as part of the whole. He is

frequently cheated, sometimes incurs serious losses. Hard-earned money finds its way

into the pockets of clever but unscrupulous scoundrels, who as rapidly squander it in

reckless living.—J.O.

Honesty the best policy.

We have first a law of purity, which needs no exposition, but in its holy severity

(Deuteronomy 25:11, Deuteronomy 25:12) was fitted to check all tendency to lewd

practices among the women of Israel. Then Moses passes on to speak of the crime of

having divers weights and measures, and the effort to make money by dishonest practices.

No blessing from God can rest upon such willfully dishonest ones; if his blessing is to be

experienced, it must be by a policy of honesty all round.

I. IT IS APPARENTLY EASY TO MAKE MONEY BY LIGHT WEIGHTS AND

SHORT MEASURES. It is not only securing the ordinary profits, but gaining by the

deficiency palmed off for the perfect measure. It is a gain by quantity as well as by price.

And plenty of people who look only at the surface imagine that they can easily enrich

themselves by a little dishonesty, which will never be detected. Inspectors of weights and

measures are the embodiment of the suspicions of society.

II. IT IS A SYSTEM OF BUSINESS UPON WHICH NO DIVINE BLESSING CAN BE

ASKED. NO better test of the propriety of our procedure can be found than this. Will it

stand the test of prayer? Can God, the All-holy One, be expected to bless it? Now, his

whole Word shows that such practices are abominations to him. The stars of heaven will

at length fight against such a policy.

III. NO TEMPORARY SUCCESS CAN COMPENSATE FOR AN UNEASY

CONSCIENCE. Suppose that success waited on dishonesty invariably and proved lasting,

life would be made miserable by the uneasy conscience. Stifled for a time, it rises like the

furies at last, and makes life a lasting misery. No man ever trifled with conscience anal

did not suffer for it. Success becomes in such a case but a whited sepulcher; the

experience within is but the rottenness of the tomb.

IV. HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY FOR PERSONAL PEACE AND FOR DIVINE

BLESSING. We say that no man should so far outrage his conscience as to be dishonest.

Honesty is a policy to be pursued for its own sake, as the only condition of personal

peace. Were there no Divine blessing in question at all, conscientious men would be as

honest as they are now.

At the same time, it makes the honesty all the happier that it lies in the sunshine of the

Infinite Presence, and that his radiant smile is on it. There is no danger of a mercenary

spirit entering into such a relation with God. He so wraps us round that in his circle of

love it would be most ungrateful and most dissonant to practice dishonesty.

With people under a theocracy, or reign of God, we should expect to find just weights and

full measures. The visits of the inspectors should prove superfluous with all those whose

life lies open as the day to the inspection of their King.—R.M.E.

14 Do not have two differing measures in your

house--one large, one small.

1. Clarke, “Divers measures - Literally, an ephah and an ephah; one large, to buy thy neighbor’s wares, another small, to sell thy own by. So there were knaves in all ages, and among all nations. See the notes on Exo_16:16, and Lev_19:35 (note).

2. Gill, “Thou shall not have in thine house divers, measures,.... Or, "an ephah and an ephah"; which was one sort of measure in use with the Jews, and held above a bushel; and is put for all others, which should be alike, and not

a great and a small; one to buy with, and another to sell by, as before observed; which would be to cheat both seller and buyer in their turns; see Amo_8:5.

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.

1. Gill, “ But thou shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shall thou have,.... That is, full weights, and full measures; and such as are alike, and everywhere used, according to the standard of the country; See Gill on Lev_19:36,

that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee; long life was always reckoned a blessing, and is frequently promised to, obedience, and particularly long life in the land of Canaan; which was a most delightful and fruitful land, and which a man might wish to live long in; deceitful men, are threatened with not living half their days, and such may they be said to be that use false weights and measures, Psa_55:23.

16 For the LORD your God detests anyone who

does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

1. Gill, “For all that do such things,.... Keep, different weights and measures, and make use of them to defraud their neighbours in buying and selling:

and all that do unrighteously; what is not just and right between man and man, in any other instance whatever:

are an abomination unto the Lord thy God; both they and their actions; he is a

righteous God, and loves righteousness, and hates injustice of every kind.

17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you

along the way when you came out of Egypt.

1. Barnes, “It was not after the spirit or mission of the Law to aim at overcoming inveterate opposition by love and by attempts at conversion (contrast Luk_9:55-56). The law taught God’s hatred of sin and of rebellion against Him by enjoining the extinction of the obstinate sinner. The Amalekites were a kindred people Gen_36:15-16; and living as they did in the peninsula of Sinai, they could not but have well known the mighty acts God had done for His people in Egypt and the Red Sea; yet they manifested from the first a persistent hostility to Israel (compare Exo_17:8, and note; Num_14:45). They provoked therefore the sentence here pronounced, which was executed at last by Saul (1Sa_15:3 ff).

2. CALVI�, "Remember what Amalek did unto thee. We have elsewhere seen how

the Amalekites were the first who made a hostile attack upon the people, and

endeavored to interrupt their journey; and Moses also related the sentence of God

against them, the execution of which he now enjoins upon the people. God then

swore that there should be perpetual war against them throughout all ages; and,

that His threatening might not be frustrated, He appoints His people to take

vengeance upon their great cruelty and impiety. For when the Israelites were

inflicting no injury nor loss upon them, it was an act of injustice to make war upon

peaceful persons proceeding, without doing any wrong, to another land. But

humanity was still more grossly violated by them, inasmuch as they did not spare

their own kindred, and thus cast away the feelings of nature. It is plain from

Genesis 36:12, that the Amalekites were the descendants of Esau; and hence it

follows that they were both sprung from the same ancestor, Isaac. It is true that this

command seems but little in accordance with religion, that the people should

retaliate an injury done to them. I reply, that they are not stimulated to vindictive

feelings in these words, but that they are commanded to punish the sins of Amalek

with the same severity as those of the other nations. God appears, indeed, to

influence them by private motives when He recounts the cruelty shewn by the

Amalekites; but we must judge of the intention of the Legislator with reference to

His nature, for we know that no angry or hateful passions can be approved by God;

and hence it is easy to conclude that the command was such as the people might

obey with well-regulated zeal. The first origin of the crime is specified, viz., because

they “feared not God,” for this must not be taken in its ordinary meaning, but as

expressing that they rebelled against God as it were deliberately. For the promise

given to Abraham and Isaac could not be unknown to them; but, since Esau, the

founder of their race, had fallen from the right of primogeniture, it came to pass

that they attempted to bring God’s covenant to nought out of wicked and

sacrilegious jealousy; and this is the reason why He unites them with the reprobate

nations unto the same destruction. The word זנב, zineb, which means to crop the tail,

is equivalent to making an attack on the rear, where the baggage and invalids are

wont to be placed.

3. Gill, “ Remember what Amalek did unto thee,.... The Amalekites, how they came out against them, and fought with them at Rephidim, Exo_17:8,

by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; which was an aggravation of their cruel and inhuman action, that they not only came out against them unprovoked, were the aggressors, and fell upon them as they were travelling on the road, but when they were just come out of Egypt, where they had been in hard bondage, and their spirits broken, and they not used to war; and so took them at all these disadvantages, a people that had not in the least injured them.

4. HAWKER, "This short account of Amalek, and the punishment of that people, comes in very properly upon the close of the foregoing precepts; for it was both a just weight and just measure, that Israel should requite Amalek, for his conduct towards them on their first coming out of Egypt. Exo_17:14-16. It is worthy remark, how Saul offended the LORD, at least four hundred years after this appointment, in not fully following up the precept: see 1Sa_15:2-9. But, I would have the Reader look a little further, than to the mere history of Amalek, and view in it somewhat typical of GOD’S people, in their conflicts with the enemies of their salvation, in all ages. Amalek, represents all those foes of our souls, which oppose us as Amalek did Israel, the moment GOD is bringing us out of spiritual Egypt. Hence Reader! behold the propriety of utterly destroying them from under heaven. LORD! I would say, enable me to slay all my lusts, all the corruptions both within and without; all the powers of darkness, and of the world, which oppose my way to thee, thou blessed JESUS!

5. HENRY, " The mischief Amalek did to Israel must be here remembered, Deu_25:17, Deu_25:18. When it was first done it was ordered to be recorded (Exo_17:14-16), and here the remembrance of it is ordered to be preserved, not in personal revenge (for that generation which suffered by the Amalekites was gone, so that those who now lived, and their posterity, could not have any personal resentment of the injury), but in a zeal for the glory of God (which was insulted by the Amalekites), that throne of the Lord against which the hand of Amalek was stretched out. The carriage of the Amalekites towards Israel is here represented, (1.) As very base and disingenuous. They had no occasion at all to quarrel with Israel, nor did they give them any notice, by a manifesto or declaration of war; but took them at an advantage, when they had just come out of the house of bondage, and, for aught that appeared to them, were only going to sacrifice to God in the wilderness. (2.) As very barbarous and cruel; for they smote those that were more feeble, whom they should have succoured. The greatest cowards are commonly the most cruel; while those that have the courage of a man will have the compassion of a man. (3.) As very impious and profane: they feared not God. If they had had any

reverence for the majesty of the God of Israel, which they saw a token of in the cloud, or any dread of his wrath, which they lately heard of the power of over Pharaoh, they durst not have made this assault upon Israel. Well, here was the ground of the quarrel: and it shows how God takes what is done against his people as done against himself, and that he will particularly reckon with those that discourage and hinder young beginners in religion, that (as Satan's agents) set upon the weak and feeble, either to divert them or to disquiet them, and offend his little ones.

6. PULPIT COMME�TARY, "Whilst in their intercourse with each other the law

of love and brotherly kindness was to predominate, it was to be otherwise in regard

to the enemies of God and his people. Them they were to overcome by force;

wickedness was to be removed by the extinction of the wicked. Moses has already

repeatedly reminded the Israelites that they had utterly to destroy the wicked

nations of Canaan; and he here closes this discourse by reminding them that there

was a nation outside of Canaan which was also doomed, and which they were to root

out. This was Amalek, which had attacked the Israelites in their journey at

Rephidim, and had taken advantage of their exhausted condition to harass their

rear and destroy those who, faint and weary, had lagged behind. For this they had

been already punished by the Israelites, who, led on by Joshua, had turned upon

them and discomfited them with the edge of the sword. This, however, was not

enough; Amalek was to be utterly destroyed, and this the Israelites were to effect as

soon as the Lord had given them rest in the Promised Land. It was not, however, till

the time of David that this was done.

Kindness to enemies is not to degenerate into sympathy with or indifference to

ungodliness.

God is kind. God is terrible. When he riseth up against sin to punish it openly,

who—who can stand? The repeated injunctions in this book, of kindness to enemies,

the prohibitions against private revenge, etc; should effectually guard any against

attributing to Moses any incitement of the people to revengeful retaliation. He utters

a prophecy, as a prophet. In Exodus 17:16, the LXX. read, ἐν χειρὶ κρυφαίᾳ, κ. τ.

λ.% "by an unseen hand the Lord will war against Amalek." In �umbers 24:20,

Balaam foretells Amalek's doom. In 1 Samuel 15:1-35; the execution of judgment on

Amalek is recorded; and thus is the meaning of our present paragraph explained.

�ote:

1. It is a very dangerous thing for a nation to harass or injure the people of God.

2. Such a nation may seem to prosper a while, but judgment is "laid up in store."

3. The retribution will come sooner or later in God's wonder-working providence.

"Their fees shall slide in due time."

4. Whatever sympathy we may rightly feel for individual sufferers, the fact that God

will ultimately avenge his people's wrongs may fill us with grateful joy.

Cowardice and cruelty avenged.

The feeling of resentment must be classed "low" among the moral sentiments. But

this command to remember and to avenge the conduct of Amalek is not resentment.

Abundant time was allowed the Amalekites to abandon evil ways and to cultivate

friendly relations with Israel. But they continued, century after century, godless and

hostile: hence their extinction.

I. ATHEISM BREEDS IS ME� BOTH CRUELTY A�D COWARDICE. Against

Amalek the gravest charge is, "he feared not God." This is the root of all his

wickedness—the source of his base hostility to Israel. Practical atheism is the

prolific parent of hateful vices. There was not a trait of nobleness in Amalek's

conduct. It was cowardly and cruel. He attacked Israel in the rear—"smote the

hindmost" stragglers—fell upon those already half-dead from fatigue. For a

moment he gloried in the inglorious massacre, but only for a moment. The prayer of

one man was more than a match for Amalek. In every age it is found that he "who

fears not God" has no "regard for man." The influence of a bad man is perilously

contagious. The whole tribe is embraced under the character of one man.

II. CRUEL TREATME�T LEAVES A� I�DELIBLE IMPRESSIO� UPO� THE

MI�D. Human nature is so constituted that a wrong done to us or to our fathers is

held tenaciously in the memory, and provokes all the feelings to avenge the deed.

Herein the Word of God is in accord with our mental nature. Human nature says,

"Remember!" The Scripture says, "Remember!" "Thou shalt not forget it."

Incidentally, we have here a proof that the Creator of the human mind is also the

Author of Scripture. Injustice rouses up all the moral forces in the universe to inflict

a fitting retribution; and very often God employs as his ministers of vengeance the

victims of former oppression. The increase, the strength, the organization of Israel

were to be employed early upon this end, viz. to extinguish Amalek.

III. I�HERITA�CE FROM GOD CARRIES WITH IT A� OBLIGATIO� TO DO

HIS WILL. Rest is given to prepare for more difficult service. "When the Lord thy

God hath given thee rest … thou shalt blot out Amalek." God never gives to men

any inheritance for exclusive selfish enjoyment. If we are not disposed for service,

and even for warfare, the only consistent course is to decline God's gifts. He has

plainly made known to men the conditions of his bequests. Before Israel possessed

the Promised Land it was clearly revealed what was expected from the occupants of

that inheritance. �or is the inheritance of heaven a state of indolent repose. The

voice that says, "Enter into joy," says also, "Be thou ruler." We read of disputes

between Michael and the adversary. Who shall say that God will not employ his

ransomed ones to put down rebellion in some outlying province?—D.

7. PETER PETTIT, "Amalek To Be Punished For Their Guilt (Deuteronomy 25:17-

19).

This sudden introduction of this curse on Amalek may seem to take us by surprise,

but it in fact a closing echo of Deuteronomy 23:1-9, while at the same time finalising

the whole section from Deuteronomy 12 onwards (see below). In Deuteronomy 23:1-

9 we saw described those who were excluded from the assembly of Yahweh. Here

was a people who were to be more than excluded, they were to be blotted out

completely. Thus here it stands alone as a conclusion to the whole.

�evertheless it contrasts with the ensuring of the perpetuation of Israel

(Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Deuteronomy 25:15), and the perpetuation of the names of

the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 25:6). And it brings to a close this final section

of regulations with a stern reminder that God is not mocked, and that He watches

over His covenant people, and that all who come against them and deal

treacherously with them will perish. It will then be followed by Israel’s submission

to the people to the Overlord Who has so delivered them (Deuteronomy 26:1-15).

Analysis in the words of Moses.

a Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth out of

Egypt (Deuteronomy 25:17).

b How he met you by the way, and smote the hindmost of you, all who were

feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God

(Deuteronomy 25:18).

b Therefore it shall be, when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all

your enemies round about, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an

inheritance to possess it (Deuteronomy 25:19 a).

a That you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You

shall not forget (Deuteronomy 25:19 b).

�ote that in ‘a’ they are to remember what Amalek did and in the parallel they are

not to forget but must blot out the remembrance of Amalek. In ‘b’ they are

reminded how Amalek made them ill at ease and restless, therefore in the parallel,

when they are at rest in the land which Yahweh is giving them they must proceed

against them.

We must recognise in what is said here that God knows men’s hearts. He was aware

of the total degradation of the Canaanites, and the untrustworthiness of Moab and

Ammon, but He was even more aware that Amalek could not be redeemed. They

were totally treacherous. They did indeed later combine with Edom and Moab in

continual merciless raids on Israel (Judges 3:12-13). And like the Canaanites they

must be totally destroyed

They had only to think back to see why this should be so. For even as they were

coming forth from Egypt the Amalekites were lying in wait and treacherously

attacked the rear of the exhausted party, where the weak and most vulnerable were.

They had no fear of God (Exodus 17:16). To them the weak and vulnerable, clearly

escaping from Egypt, were not seen as an opportunity to show kindness or to give

hospitality, but as an easy target to be taken advantage of. They had revealed

themselves as totally devoid of that fear of God which alone could make a man

redeemable (Exodus 17:8-15). Indeed it was then that, at Yahweh’s command,

Moses had written down the whole incident as a permanent record against them,

and as a testimonial to the fact that God would ‘put out the remembrance of Amalek

from under heaven’ (Exodus 17:14).

8. CATHERS, “The tribe of Amalek were descendants of Esau’s grandson (cf. Gen. 36:12)

• For some, Amalek is a type of the flesh.

(Exo 17:8-16 KJV) Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. {9} And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. {10} So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. {11} And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. {12} But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. {13} And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. {14} And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. {15} And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi: {16} For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.

Jehovahnissi – "Yahweh is my banner"

The extermination of the merciless.

The crime of the Amalekites was falling upon the hindmost, who were faint and weary. It was an act of judgment untempered by any mercy; and the decree of God is their extermination because they were merciless. Just as we see in another place that God won't forgive the unforgiving, so here we see that he will blot out the merciless from under his merciful heaven. "For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy" (James 2:13).

I. THE MERCILESS DESERVE NO MERCY. In the case before us there was everything calculated to stir up mercy. The rearguard was feeble and faint and weary. Surely these Amalekites will pity the poor pilgrims, and show them some mercy. But no, they think they are all the better prey, and so they smite the people of God most mercilessly. In their heartless act they put themselves beyond the pale of God's compassion, lie consigns them to extermination under the swords of Israel. Our conscience says, "Amen" to this decree. The Amalekites deserve destruction for their heartlessness.

What a word of warning to heartless people still! Let it be carried to a certain point, and God will hand them over to deserved destruction.

II. THE REARGUARD IS ALWAYS AVENGED. The tribe of Dan was directed to go "hindmost with their standards" (Numbers 2:31). And it must have seemed a trial to be always in the rear and never in the van. But they were here taught that they had in God a special Avenger. He espouses their cause, and will bring forth their righteousness as the light, and their judgment as the noonday (Psalms 37:6).

III. LET US CONTENTEDLY TAKE THE HINDMOST PLACE IF GOD GIVES IT TO US. All cannot be in the van, and the faithfulness of the rearguard is as much a matter of Divine observation as is the dash and courage which characterize the van.—R.M.E.

18 When you were weary and worn out, they met

you on your journey and cut off all who were

lagging behind; they had no fear of God.

1. Clarke, “Smote the hindmost of thee - See the note on Exo_17:8. It is supposed that this command had its final accomplishment in the death of Haman and his ten sons, Esther iii., vii., ix., 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.

2. Gill, “How he met thee by the way,.... Not with necessary provisions, food and drink, which would have been but a piece of kindness and humanity to travellers; but met them sword in hand, in order to stop their journey, and make them captives, at least to harass and distress them:

and smote the hindmost of thee; came upon them in a sly cowardly manner, and attacked their rear:

even all that were feeble behind thee: women and children, and such men as were weak, sickly, labouring under some disorder, and so lagged behind, and could not keep up with the rest; on these Amalek first fell, and began his attack here:

when thou wast faint and weary; with travelling, and the more so for want of water, which was their case at Rephidim, when Amalek came out against them; which is another aggravation of their unkind usage of them they were not to forget:

and he feared not God; who was then in the pillar of cloud and fire with Israel, which phenomenon Amalek might see, and yet did not fear; and who had done such wonders for Israel in Egypt, and had brought them from thence, and had drowned Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea, of which doubtless Amalek had heard, and yet feared not the Lord, who had done such great things.

3. GUZIK, “Remember what Amalek did: The Amalekites attack on the Israelites is recorded in Exodus

17; Joshua led the armies of Israel in victory over the Amalekites as Moses prayed for them, assisted by Aaron and Hur.

b. Blot out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven: Because of God's strong command to battle against Amalek until they are completely conquered, many see the Amalekites as a picture of our flesh - which constantly battles against the spirit and must be struggled against until

completely conquered (Galatians 5:17)

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

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 memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do

not forget!

1. GILL, "Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about,.... Not only when they had subdued the Canaanites, and got possession of their land, but when they were clear and free from all their neighbouring nations, Moabites, Midianites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Philistines; wherefore it may be observed, that this did not take place, as not immediately after the conquest of Canaan, so neither in the times of the judges, when they were harassed frequently by their neighbours, and not until the times of Saul, the first king of Israel:

in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it; the sense is, when they were in the full possession of the land given them by the Lord, as an inheritance to be enjoyed by them and theirs; and were at an entire rest from all enemies, and so had their hands at liberty to employ against Amalek:

that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven: that is, utterly destroy them, so that there should be none left of them any where, to put in mind that there ever were such a people on earth; men, women, children, cattle of all sorts, were to be destroyed, and nothing left that belonged unto them; that it might not be said this beast was Amalek's, as Jarchi, and to the same purpose Aben Ezra; see the order for this renewed, and the accomplishment of it, at least in part, 1Sa_15:2, &c.

thou shall not forget it; neither the unkindness of Amalek, nor this order to destroy him. The Targum of Jonathan adds,"and even in the days of the King Messiah it shall not be forgotten.''

2. HAWKER, "I DESIRE grace to bless my compassionate GOD, that my stripes have fallen far short of my sins, and I may truly say to my soul with one of old, Know, therefore, that GOD hath exacted of thee less than thy iniquity deserved. It is thou, dearest JESUS, who hath been wounded for my transgressions, and bruised for my

iniquities; the chastisement of my peace was upon thee, and with thy stripes I have been healed. LORD! grant me the teachings of thine HOLY SPIRIT, that in all thy dealings with men, I may bring no reproach upon thy cause, nor have divers weights and divers measures, but a just balance, which is thy delight. And for all the Amalekites and enemies of my salvation. LORD! endue me with strength and holy resolution, that mine eye may not spare, however delicately they may seem, but by the arm of my GOD, may I hew them in pieces before the LORD my Saviour.

3. HENRY, "This mischief must in due time be revenged, Deu_25:19. When their wars were finished, by which they were to settle their kingdom and enlarge their coast, then they must make war upon Amalek (Deu_25:19), not merely to chase them, but to consume them, to blot out the remembrance of Amalek. It was an instance of God's patience that he deferred the vengeance so long, which should have led the Amalekites to repentance; yet an instance of fearful retribution that the posterity of Amalek, so long after, were destroyed for the mischief done by their ancestors to the Israel of God, that all the world might see, and say, that he who toucheth them toucheth the apple of his eye. It was nearly 400 years after this that Saul was ordered to put this sentence in execution (1 Sa. 15), and was rejected of God because he did not do it effectually, but spared some of that devoted nation, in contempt, not only of the particular orders he received from Samuel, but of this general command here given by Moses, which he could not be ignorant of. David afterwards made some destruction of them; and the Simeonites, in Hezekiah's time, smote the rest that remained (1Ch_4:43); for when God judges he will overcome.

4. PETER PETTIT, "And it was now confirmed that that was what He would do. Once Israel had been given rest from all their enemies (it could wait until they were safely established in the land) then He would blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven, as He had previously declared in Exodus 17:14. They were under the Ban. For the partial fulfilment see 1 Samuel 15:1-33, and for its completion 1 Chronicles 4:43. Amalek was the ultimate picture of those who do not fear God and who refuse utterly to obey Him.

“When Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies round about.” This is a marker which connects these verses with Deuteronomy 12, which began this section of the book. There it had led in to the establishment of the place which Yahweh would choose and to their abundant worship of Him (Deuteronomy 12:10-12), here it was to lead in to the blotting out of Amalek. The section began in glory, it ends in judgment. Light must triumph. Darkness must be obliterated. And in between His people must do His will.

We can therefore see in this description a picture of the destruction of Satan and his forces. Like the Serpent, the Amalekites had sought to destroy God’s project right at the beginning. But Yahweh will bring His people into the land and bring them into rest, then He will establish His name there and dwell among them, while their darkest enemies both within (the Canaanites) and without (the Amalekites) will be removed for ever. So one day will it be with Satan.

There is also the stark warning that it is possible for people to come to such a state that turning to God becomes impossible because their hearts are too hardened. If we do

not seek Him wile we are young, we might find that age has hardened us so that we never seek Him.