Worthy.Bible » STRONG » Deuteronomy » Chapter 25 » Verse 1-19

Deuteronomy 25:1-19 King James Version with Strong's Concordance (STRONG)

1 If there be a controversy H7379 between men, H582 and they come H5066 unto judgment, H4941 that the judges may judge H8199 them; then they shall justify H6663 the righteous, H6662 and condemn H7561 the wicked. H7563

2 And it shall be, if the wicked man H7563 be worthy H1121 to be beaten, H5221 that the judge H8199 shall cause him to lie down, H5307 and to be beaten H5221 before his face, H6440 according H1767 to his fault, H7564 by a certain number. H4557

3 Forty H705 stripes H5221 he may give him, and not exceed: H3254 lest, if he should exceed, H3254 and beat H5221 him above these with many H7227 stripes, H4347 then thy brother H251 should seem vile H7034 H5869 unto thee.

4 Thou shalt not muzzle H2629 the ox H7794 when he treadeth out H1758 the corn.

5 If brethren H251 dwell H3427 together, H3162 and one H259 of them die, H4191 and have no child, H1121 the wife H802 of the dead H4191 shall not marry without H2351 unto a stranger: H376 H2114 her husband's brother H2993 shall go in H935 unto her, and take H3947 her to him to wife, H802 and perform the duty of an husband's brother H2992 unto her.

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn H1060 which she beareth H3205 shall succeed H6965 in the name H8034 of his brother H251 which is dead, H4191 that his name H8034 be not put out H4229 of Israel. H3478

7 And if the man H376 like H2654 not to take H3947 his brother's wife, H2994 then let his brother's wife H2994 go up H5927 to the gate H8179 unto the elders, H2205 and say, H559 My husband's brother H2993 refuseth H3985 to raise up H6965 unto his brother H251 a name H8034 in Israel, H3478 he will H14 not perform the duty of my husband's brother. H2992

8 Then the elders H2205 of his city H5892 shall call H7121 him, and speak H1696 unto him: and if he stand H5975 to it, and say, H559 I like H2654 not to take H3947 her;

9 Then shall his brother's wife H2994 come H5066 unto him in the presence H5869 of the elders, H2205 and loose H2502 his shoe H5275 from off his foot, H7272 and spit H3417 in his face, H6440 and shall answer H6030 and say, H559 So shall it be done H6213 unto that man H376 that will not build up H1129 his brother's H251 house. H1004

10 And his name H8034 shall be called H7121 in Israel, H3478 The house H1004 of him that hath his shoe H5275 loosed. H2502

11 When men H582 strive H5327 together H3162 one with another, H251 H376 and the wife H802 of the one H259 draweth near H7126 for to deliver H5337 her husband H376 out of the hand H3027 of him that smiteth H5221 him, and putteth forth H7971 her hand, H3027 and taketh H2388 him by the secrets: H4016

12 Then thou shalt cut off H7112 her hand, H3709 thine eye H5869 shall not pity H2347 her.

13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag H3599 divers weights, H68 H68 a great H1419 and a small. H6996

14 Thou shalt not have in thine house H1004 divers measures, H374 H374 a great H1419 and a small. H6996

15 But thou shalt have a perfect H8003 and just H6664 weight, H68 a perfect H8003 and just H6664 measure H374 shalt thou have: that thy days H3117 may be lengthened H748 in the land H127 which the LORD H3068 thy God H430 giveth H5414 thee.

16 For all that do H6213 such things, H428 and all that do H6213 unrighteously, H5766 are an abomination H8441 unto the LORD H3068 thy God. H430

17 Remember H2142 what Amalek H6002 did H6213 unto thee by the way, H1870 when ye were come forth H3318 out of Egypt; H4714

18 How he met H7136 thee by the way, H1870 and smote the hindmost H2179 of thee, even all that were feeble H2826 behind H310 thee, when thou wast faint H5889 and weary; H3023 and he feared H3373 not God. H430

19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD H3068 thy God H430 hath given thee rest H5117 from all thine enemies H341 round about, H5439 in the land H776 which the LORD H3068 thy God H430 giveth H5414 thee for an inheritance H5159 to possess H3423 it, that thou shalt blot out H4229 the remembrance H2143 of Amalek H6002 from under heaven; H8064 thou shalt not forget H7911 it.

Worthy.Bible » Commentaries » Keil & Delitzsch Commentary » Commentary on Deuteronomy 25

Commentary on Deuteronomy 25 Keil & Delitzsch Commentary


Verses 1-3

Corporal Punishment. - The rule respecting the corporal punishment to be inflicted upon a guilty man is introduced in Deuteronomy 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. Exodus 22:8 and Exodus 23:7).

Deuteronomy 25:2

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. הכּות בּן , son of stripes, i.e., a man liable to stripes, like son (child) of death, in 1 Samuel 20:31. “ According to the need of his crime in number ,” i.e., as many stripes as his crime deserved.

Deuteronomy 25:3

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 (Proverbs 10:13; Proverbs 19:29; Proverbs 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 Genesis 7:12 onwards, as the full measure of judgment. The Rabbins fixed the number at forty save one (vid., 2 Corinthians 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 (vid., tract. Macc . iii. 12; Buxtorf , Synag. Jud. pp. 522-3; and Lundius, Jüd. Heiligth. p. 472).


Verse 4

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 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 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).


Verses 5-10

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. יבּם, denom. from יבם, 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” (הנּעל חלוּץ, 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; ? foundation of his house” (vid., my Archäologie, pp. 64, 65).


Verse 11-12

“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.


Verses 13-16

The duty of integrity in trade is once more enforced in Deuteronomy 25:13-16 (as in Leviticus 19:35-36). “ Stone and stone ,” i.e., two kinds of stones for weighing (cf. Psalms 12:3), viz., large ones for buying and small ones for selling. On the promise in Deuteronomy 25:15 , see Deuteronomy 4:26; Deuteronomy 5:16; Deuteronomy 25:16 , as in Deuteronomy 22:5; Deuteronomy 18:12, etc. In the concluding words, Deuteronomy 25:16 , “ all that do unrighteously ,” Moses sums up all breaches of the law.


Verses 17-19

But whilst the Israelites were to make love the guiding principle of their conduct in their dealings with a neighbour, and even with strangers and foes, this love was not to degenerate into weakness or indifference towards open ungodliness. To impress this truth upon the people, Moses concludes the discourse on the law by reminding them of the crafty enmity manifested towards them by Amalek on their march out of Egypt, and with the command to root out the Amalekites (cf. Exodus 17:9-16). This heathen nation had come against Israel on its journey, viz., at Rephidim in Horeb, and had attacked its rear: “ All the enfeebled behind thee, whilst thou wast faint and weary, without fearing God .” זנּב , lit., to tail, hence to attack or destroy the rear of an army or of a travelling people (cf. Joshua 10:19). For this reason, when the Lord should have given Israel rest in the land of its inheritance, it was to root out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven. (On the execution of this command, see 1 Sam 15.) “ Thou shalt not forget it: ” an emphatic enforcement of the “remember” in Deuteronomy 25:17.