Deuteronomy 25 Footnotes

25:2 Physical punishment and public humiliation may appear barbaric to the modern “enlightened” mind, but their deterrent effect can hardly be denied. With prisons unavailable, especially for a people on the move, incarceration for crime was virtually non-existent in ancient Israel. This left few options for the application of justice. The criminal who was beaten would not be kept at public expense, and would be able to continue to work to provide for his family.

25:4 The significance of this apparently trivial instruction is not simply to call attention to the need for humane treatment of animals. It is also an analogy to the human scene. If an ox is to be treated with such consideration, allowed to benefit from the results of its labor, how much more should human beings be so treated. That is certainly the way the apostle Paul took this instruction (1Co 9:9; 1Tm 5:18).

25:5 The custom described here (the so-called “levirate marriage”) must be understood in terms of a number of qualifications. First, the marriage to a widow was expected but not mandatory (v. 7; Ru 4:5-6). Then, since monogamy was the only sanctioned form of marriage, the surviving brothers must not be married in order to fulfill the obligation. Finally, the purpose was to preserve the deceased brother’s name and by this means to guarantee his ongoing identity (Dt 25:6) in a culture which had, as yet, no view of the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees (who also had no such belief) tried to trip Jesus up on this question with a fictitious example of the “levirate marriage,” but he saw through their ploy (Mt 22:23-32).

25:9 To spit in the face may strike one as repulsive behavior, yet each society has its gestures that would seem crude to people of other cultures. This act of disdain or refusal was (and is) common in Middle Eastern societies and must be judged, as to its propriety, against that cultural environment. The loosening of the sandal suggests that the reluctant brother is abandoning all claim to the widow’s property (see Nm 12:14; Ru 4:7-8).

25:16 Even modern moral relativism has not erased the public’s disgust with duplicity or cheating in business practice (vv. 13-15). Dishonest dealings are an abomination to the Lord, as well. Such behavior is not just an abuse of another individual; it impacts the ethical equilibrium of the whole community. To rob one’s neighbor is, in a sense, to rob God, for he is the one who dispenses economic blessing as he sees fit.

25:17 The injunction to forgive and forget, while clearly a biblical principle, does not apply in cases where God’s honor or that of his people has been violated without subsequent remorse and repentance. The attack of the Amalekites against the weakest of the Israelites was an attack on the Lord, who cares for just such people (v. 18). Saul’s later failure to carry out the mandate for Amalek’s complete annihilation resulted in the termination of his dynasty (1Sm 15:26).