Deuteronomy 25: 1 – 19
Fulfilling family obligations
25 “If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. 3 Forty blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight. 4 “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. 5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’ 11 “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her. 13 “You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. 14 You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. 15 You shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure, that your days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD your God is giving you. 16 For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the LORD your God. 17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, 18 how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.
Our Holy Lord God Yahweh values the family. You have to be blind to not realize that in today’s world the family is facing attack. The family functions as a whole with specific obligations toward one another.
An obligation is a course of action that someone is required to take, whether legal or moral.
The mission of the Lord’s Church is to help all people come unto Christ. Families can help accomplish this mission as they:
Provide for their own spiritual and physical needs and help meet the needs of others.
Families are to become self-reliant so they can provide for their own physical needs and help others. To become self-reliant, family members must be willing to work. Work is physical, mental, or spiritual effort. It is a source of accomplishment, happiness, self-esteem, and prosperity. Parents should strive to be self-reliant and should teach their children likewise. Being self-reliant will enable them to help those in need.
Fathers are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. Parents see that the family has a clean home, wholesome food, clothing, medical and dental care, educational opportunities, instruction in managing financial resources, and, if possible, training in how to grow some of their own food. Parents should teach their children how to prepare their food and how to preserve it for later use.
Parents should be willing to work hard to provide for these physical needs. Parents should plan and prepare to provide for family needs in times of illness, disaster, unemployment, or other difficulties. If the father has trouble providing for the physical needs of his family and if other family members are unable to help, he may seek assistance through the church family.
Family members should improve their ability to read, write, and do basic arithmetic and should take advantage of every opportunity to obtain knowledge and improve skills. They should obey the Bible.
Parents should teach their children to share with others. Nearly everyone can give something, no matter how little they have. One way to help those in need is by fasting each month and contributing fast offerings, which are used to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, and relieve the afflicted. We show our love for the Lord when we help others. He said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matthew 25:40).
Family members should do all they can to help their relatives, friends, and neighbors learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the blessings it can bring into their lives. By sharing the gospel, parents and children can strengthen their own testimonies and bring the blessings of the gospel to others.
So far I have listed the obligations that family members have to one another. Sometimes the family is expanded to include close relatives. With these unique situations we find that there are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, and possibly in terms of extended family, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfillment.
In the book of Genesis chapter 4 a statement was made by Cain, “9 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” Although we do not get a direct answer to that question, we all know that the answer is ‘yes’.
Today we will be taught that there will be situations in which a family will have to step in and have a direct influence in the lives of close relatives.
This chapter continues with the idea of fairness, and the thought of consideration and doing right and runs throughout, commencing with the requirement for true justice and a fair hearing with a limitation on beatings, and dealing with not muzzling the ox, surrogate motherhood, decency and right behavior when quarrelling, and correct weights and measures. There is an emphasis on shaming for those who fail.
25 “If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,
Here Moses summarized the situation quite simply by declaring that in any controversy that came for judgment which the judges judge, they must have only one aim in mind, to declare righteous those who are righteous, and condemn those who are unrighteous, without fear or favor.
We are probably to see that one of the combatants may well have charged the other with something that deserved a beating. A guilty verdict would mean the offender was beaten, a not guilty verdict might see the accuser beaten if he was seen as a false witness (19.16-21),
2 then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. 3 Forty blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight.
In our Holy God’s rules any punishment must be reasonable and controlled. If a man was to be beaten the judge must cause him to lie down, and then he would be beaten in his presence,, the number of stripes determined by what was seen as his level of offense. But the number of stripes must not be more than forty under any circumstances. Forty stripes as a maximum recognized standard of what a man could bear at that time.
We notice here the concern for justice with a mixture of mercy. Being prone rather than strung up would ensure that the beating was more limited in power, the judge’s presence would ensure fair play, the fact that he had to be present would, apart from the most heartless, hopefully make him consider his sentence more carefully, the strokes were to be counted, and they must not number more than forty. Much later on they were limited to thirty nine in case of wrong counting, but the means of application became more vicious. This was comparatively compassionate.
If more than forty stripes were given it would mean that they were looking on their fellow-tribesman as vile and worthy of humiliation, which would be contrary to the covenant, and therefore not to be allowed. The dignity of an Israelite was considered to be important, and the purpose of the punishment was restoration to good covenant citizenship.
The principle in these regulations is that of fair and just treatment towards other parties. The ox who treads out the grain must be treated fairly and be given seed (grain) (4), a deceased brother must be treated fairly and be given seed (children) (5-10), a combatant must be treated fairly and his seed producing capability not be attacked (11-12), a purchaser must be treated fairly when he buys seed (grain) (13-16).
4 “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.
Just as the poor could gather the gleanings (24.19), so was the ox to be allowed his fodder. Not only would it work more contentedly and possibly save it from having to be beaten (was there a contrast in Moses’ mind with the man who had to be beaten?), but it was also not felt to be seemly to make an ox work on its natural food and not be able to eat of it just as certain unlike things should be kept apart (22.9-11), so others which were compatible should not unreasonably be kept apart.
It may well be that this was already a proverb and had wider implications, signifying the duty of giving due reward and appreciation for services rendered. The apostle Paul used this example to illustrate the need for Christians to give to assist the work of the ministry (1 Corinthians 9.9; 1 Timothy 5.18).
The purpose of this next regulation was in order to ensure that a man who died childless had a son who could inherit his property, and, more importantly, would continue his name. To an Israelite these were matters of supreme importance. It was to be achieved by his brother acting as his proxy and discreetly having sexual relations with his deceased brother’s wife so as to implant within her the family seed, who would then be looked on as his deceased brother’s, and inherit his name and his land.
5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
Please take a good look at the condition. The brothers must be ‘dwelling together’ (Psalm 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. The aim was totally meritorious, to preserve the brother’s name.
6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
Any firstborn son would then be looked on as the deceased brother’s. He would succeed to his name and to his inheritance, so that his name might not be blotted out of Israel, and so that the dead brother might live on in his son. The blotting out of the name was seen as an appalling catastrophe. It was ceasing to be.
7 But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’
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.
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’
The elders of the city were then to add their weight behind the widow’s plea. This was something to be favored 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 honor 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’ (Psalm 8.6). Or it may have indicated loss of possession of the land, which he could no longer tread on. He was revealed as having failed in his duty.
10 And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’
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).
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.
11 “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.
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. She was preventing the fulfillment 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.
God dealt totally honestly with His people and His judgments were always righteous. When He weighed them the balances were always accurate. The very idea of weighing was that it ensured accuracy and fairness. In the same way must His people use accurate weights and measures? There was clearly widespread use of false weights and measures in the ancient.
What is in mind here is the purchase and sale of produce, for it is mainly that which would require weighing. In the background may be the thought that the purchaser has labored for his silver, as the ox did on threshing the grain, and must not therefore be ‘muzzled’ by being given short measure. But basic to it all is just dealing.
13 “You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. 14 You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. 15 You shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure, that your days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
Here God speaks very strongly against dishonesty in selling goods. To use different weights depending on the customer was inexcusable. To use different measures was equally inexcusable. The very purpose of weights and measures was to demonstrate fair dealing. To have ones which were themselves dishonest was total hypocrisy, and it especially hit at the poor and trusting, and those who had labored hard to obtain food.
The twofold weights might have been used one for buying, and the other for selling, or one for weighing the goods and the other for weighing the silver, or one for the astute and the other for the simple. They could produce a combination of deceit. But this was not to be. All their dealings were to be totally open and honest. The weights and measures used must be precise, accurate and genuine. Then they would deserve to have long life in the land which Yahweh their God was giving them.
16 For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the LORD your God.
For any dishonest action, and any dishonest behavior is an abomination to Yahweh. The language is very strong. Such behavior was firmly contrary to the covenant, and God hated it.
This sudden introduction of this curse on Amalek may seem to take us by surprise, but it in fact a closing echo of 23.1-9, while at the same time finalizing the whole section from chapter 12 onwards. In 23.1-9 we saw described those who were excluded from the assembly of Yahweh. Now we see here 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.
17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, 18 how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God.
We must recognize 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).
19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.
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.
Amalek was the ultimate picture of those who do not fear God and who refuse utterly to obey Him. It is like what we see today with terrorists who do not care if they kill women and children.
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.
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 while we are young, we might find that age has hardened us so that we never seek Him.
