Original Meaning
Safeguarding Righteousness in the Administration of Justice (25:1–3)
WITH THE FIRST FRAGMENT Moses concludes his instructions on the legal administration of justice in Israel.1 This paragraph consists of the main case (v. 1), a secondary case (v. 2), and an addendum to prevent excess in the administration of the sentence. The opening statement is vague—a legal case2 arises between two men, inviting application to any dispute. When a dispute arises that people are unable to settle privately, they may take it to the court for adjudication. The parallel statements in verse 1, “and they shall declare the righteous righteous,” and “and they shall declare the wicked wicked” (pers. trans.), express the ideals of true justice. The first declaration signifies acquittal (cf. Ezek 18:9); the second signifies conviction. The subcase in verse 2 is concerned only with cases that call for punishment by flogging. In Deuteronomy this applies only in the case of a man who wrongfully accuses his bride of not being a virgin (22:18).
The specific instructions on the execution of this punishment in verses 2–3 reflect keen concern for justice for both parties. To ensure the executioner does not overstep the bounds of the sentence, the punishment must be administered in the presence of the judge, and the number of lashings must be correlated with the severity of the crime. To protect the dignity of the accused and to prevent excessive public humiliation, Moses sets forty lashes as the absolute maximum sentence. While it is unclear what constitutes excessive public degradation, the identification of the convicted person as “your brother” suggests that even though justice was to be administered by objective standards, floggings were never to be carried out heartlessly. After all, even guilty persons are members of the community.
Bridging Contexts
ELSEWHERE IN THE OLD Testament. On this note Moses’ pastoral exposition of the statutes, ordinances, and laws revealed by Yahweh through him to Israel at Sinai and later (cf. 12:1) comes to an end. From 12:2–25:16 he has been appealing to his people to demonstrate the wholehearted loyalty to Yahweh he called for in chapters 6–11 in exclusive worship of him (12:2–16:17) and by scrupulous adherence to the terms of the covenant as spelled out previously. In so doing he has sought to apply those terms particularly to the new situation the people will face once they have crossed the Jordan, displaced the Canaanites, and occupied the land. In this chapter Moses has addressed four principal issues, each of which has implications for the faith and conduct of God’s people in our own day.
These issues do not all surface in later writings. Exodus 21:20 refers to a criminal case involving a master beating his servant with a rod, but 1 Kings 12:11 contains the only reference to flogging in Hebrew narratives. Here Rehoboam speaks of disciplining workers with whips and scorpions, that is, barbed whips.33 Beating was a common means of punishment, but no case of judicial beating as prescribed in verses 1–2 is recorded. In the New Testament, Jesus’ beating was but one of the many illegal features of his arrest and trial (Luke 22:63).
The events of Genesis 38 happened long before Moses’ present address, but the use of the verb yibbēm (“to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law”) in 38:8 suggests this account was written from the perspective of Deuteronomy 25:5–10. A series of events threatened the line of Judah. His firstborn son, Er, died before his wife Tamar bore him a son; Onan refused to serve his brother as a yābām; Judah’s failure to arrange for his third son Shelah to marry Tamar. Tamar responded by tricking her father-in-law, Judah, to play the role of yābām, which led to the birth of twins, Perez and Zerah.34
Although the root ybm appears only once in the book of Ruth,35 the book in general and the procedure described in chapter 4 in particular involve the subject of our text. Whereas in Genesis 38 the widow Tamar took the initiative, here the mother of the deceased played that role. While Naomi recognized Boaz as a potential yābām, the fact that he was a more distant relative of Mahlon (perhaps uncle or cousin) may explain the use of the word gōʾēl (“near relative”; 2:20, et passim) instead of yābām. The scene in chapter 4 is the opposite of that envisioned in Deuteronomy 25:7–10. Unlike the unwilling yābām in our text, Boaz was eager to preserve the family and patrimony of a kinsman. Whereas the sandal ritual in Deuteronomy is cast as a shaming ritual, here the man who defers to Boaz voluntarily removed his shoe and handed it to Boaz (rather than Ruth)—not as an act of shame, but as legal attestation of a redemptive transaction (cf. Ruth 4:7). In the presence of witnesses, Boaz received the legal right to marry Ruth, and in this way secured the line of Elimelech and Mahlon (4:1–13).
The temptation to cheat in business deals by reducing or enlarging measuring instruments to one’s own advantage (vv. 13–16) afflicts every generation. The book of Proverbs raises the issue three times. In 16:11 the sage declares that no one—not even kings—may tinker with balances and scales because Yahweh owns them and establishes the definitions of “honest” instruments.36 In 20:10 and 23 the sage picks up the Deuteronomic expression of something that “the LORD detests”; but instead of applying the expression to the person who cheats this way, he applies it to the instruments used to cheat others.
The problem seems to have become especially acute in Israel and Judah as their respective dooms neared. In Amos 8:5 the prophet from Tekoa denounced merchants for shrinking the ephah and inflating the shekel and using false scales. A century and a half later, as part of his description of the new Israelite social and spiritual order, with apodictic authority Ezekiel called on princes not to oppress Yahweh’s people with false measuring instruments. Borrowing the language of Deuteronomy he demanded the use of “righteous” (ṣedeq) scales, ephahs, and baths (Ezek. 45:10–11). Although the New Testament never refers specifically to cheating with false measurements, Paul’s use of expressions like “dishonest gain” (1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:7) in his list of disqualifications from leadership positions probably includes cheating.
Contemporary Significance
RIGHTEOUSNESS. MANY REJECT THESE and most of Moses’ instructions as having no binding authority for Christians, for they are not explicitly reiterated in the New Testament, and in any case the eschatological new Israel of God has been established.37 However, this approach rejects the authority of Jesus Christ himself, who declared that he did not come to destroy the “law” (read “Torah”), but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17), and that the proof of covenant commitment (love) to him (the vine) is keeping his “command,” which functions as a collective expression for the revealed will of God (John 14:15, 21; 15:10).
It also neutralizes the force of Paul’s declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is authoritative and effective for training in “righteousness” (dikaiosynē), a thoroughly Deuteronomic notion. Although chapter 25 deals with specific domestic and economic issues that are culturally conditioned, the underlying theological and ethical principles certainly apply to the faith and conduct of the people of God in our day.
Serving the cause of justice. In verses 1–3 Moses reiterates the conviction that the function of legal procedures must always be to establish the truth, which means that when they are followed, the guilty will in fact be convicted and the innocent will be acquitted. Any system (including our own) that acquits those known to be guilty or convicts those known to be innocent cannot be considered a just system. When the guilty are acquitted on a technicality and the innocent are condemned because they do not have access to competent defense counsel, justice has not been served.
At the same time, the punishments appropriate to the crimes must be executed. Those responsible must be cautioned against excess on the one hand, and against dehumanization on the other. Even criminals are members of the community and image-bearers of God, whose dignity must be preserved. While we have been quick to point out the abuses of other countries in the misadministration of justice, the exposure of American treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib demonstrates that no society is immune to the temptation to abuse its captives.38
Animals. In verse 4 Moses calls for the humane treatment of domesticated animals. This charge has greatest relevance for farmers and others who use animals for draft purposes, but the principle underlying this statement extends to all involved in the raising of livestock and poultry. Although for economic reasons farmers cannot cave in to maddening and often naïve demands of some organizations that supposedly defend the rights of animals, the members of the community of faith should be exemplary in their fair and considerate treatment of their stock. Urbanites demand cheap meat, but they are removed from the practical need for farmers to make a living and often do not understand the issues involved in raising livestock. However, when for their own pleasure (as in the case of pets) or out of necessity (seeing-eye dogs), they add God’s creatures to their households, righteousness demands a commitment to humane care.
Paul takes the call for an unmuzzled ox in a different direction in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. He appeals to the ordinance to defend the right of those who serve the church to derive their living from the work they do in spreading the gospel. He asks the question, “Is it about oxen that God is concerned?” (1 Cor. 9:9). Assuming a negative answer, some argue that his rhetorical question is possible only if “ox” is interpreted figuratively of human beings.39 However, this is unnecessary if one interprets Deuteronomy 25:4 within the context of the entire chapter. Like Paul’s own statement, Moses’ instructions are addressed to human beings, not to animals. Throughout this chapter his concern has been to develop in his hearers, the people of God, a sensitive and considerate disposition, especially toward the vulnerable. Moses’ statement concerning the ox fits this agenda perfectly, extending even to animals the theological principle that in God’s economy all workers, human or animal, deserve reward for their labor.40
The integrity of the family. In verses 5–12 Moses charged his people to be conscientious in defending the integrity of the family. This defense takes place at two levels. (1) It involves each household member looking out for the interests of the others. In this context that meant the establishment of the levirate marriage as an institution to ensure the continued existence of each branch of a family tree. A culture that fails to value children as the continuation of the life of their parents will diminish the dignity and joy of parenthood and soon begin to treat them as independent entities that may be disposed of at will. Christians would do well to recover the notion of the extended family as an organic unity, whose health depends on the well-being of each member. (2) At the same time, we must nurture the sense of privilege that attends with parenthood by affirming and encouraging maternal and paternal instincts in all who come of age. Meanwhile, verses 11–12 caution against behavior within the family that is immodest or threatening to the short- and long-term health of its members.
Business dealings. In verses 13–16 Moses has appealed to the community of faith to be exemplary in their business dealings. A more relevant issue in the entire book than the call for integrity in all economic transactions can scarcely be imagined. Honest and fair calculation of transactions and scrupulous payment of debts should be the hallmark of those who claim to be God’s people. The problem exists not only at the highest levels, as in the outrageous thievery of Bernie Madoff, who bilked trusting investors of billions of dollars, but at the local checkout counter of the grocery store, where we may be tempted to overlook a miscalculation by the clerk in our favor, and in our offices as we fill out our tax forms. Of course the principle does not apply only to mercantile and financial matters; it also applies to the exchange of ideas (e.g., plagiarism). In a society that seems to become more unethical by the day, Christians should stand out for the fidelity and integrity with which they conduct their business.
Original Meaning
Safeguarding Righteousness in the Treatment of Animals (25:4)
ON THE SURFACE THIS apodictic fragment seems unrelated to the preceding. However, since draft animals were often flogged with rods, the command may have been triggered by reference to corporal punishment in verses 2–3.3 The present statement does not address excessive beating of animals, but it displays a “humanitarianism” of a different sort: Oxen used for threshing grain must not be muzzled.4 The ordinance assumes the ancient practice of threshing grain by having oxen trample the stalks or pull rock-studded sledges over the stalks spread out on the threshing floor. Greedy farmers muzzled their oxen or donkeys to prevent them from eating instead of working, or simply eating that which he hoped to harvest for himself (cf. Prov. 14:4).
This concern for animals accords with the trajectory we have observed repeatedly in Deuteronomy (cf. Prov. 12:10).5 As in 22:1–4 and 6–7, Moses’ humanitarian concern moves beyond human victims of exploitation to domestic animals. The pursuit of righteousness on the farm will involve care for the creatures in one’s charge, just as God himself does (cf. Pss. 104; 147:9).
Bridging Contexts
ELSEWHERE IN THE OLD Testament. On this note Moses’ pastoral exposition of the statutes, ordinances, and laws revealed by Yahweh through him to Israel at Sinai and later (cf. 12:1) comes to an end. From 12:2–25:16 he has been appealing to his people to demonstrate the wholehearted loyalty to Yahweh he called for in chapters 6–11 in exclusive worship of him (12:2–16:17) and by scrupulous adherence to the terms of the covenant as spelled out previously. In so doing he has sought to apply those terms particularly to the new situation the people will face once they have crossed the Jordan, displaced the Canaanites, and occupied the land. In this chapter Moses has addressed four principal issues, each of which has implications for the faith and conduct of God’s people in our own day.
These issues do not all surface in later writings. Exodus 21:20 refers to a criminal case involving a master beating his servant with a rod, but 1 Kings 12:11 contains the only reference to flogging in Hebrew narratives. Here Rehoboam speaks of disciplining workers with whips and scorpions, that is, barbed whips.33 Beating was a common means of punishment, but no case of judicial beating as prescribed in verses 1–2 is recorded. In the New Testament, Jesus’ beating was but one of the many illegal features of his arrest and trial (Luke 22:63).
The events of Genesis 38 happened long before Moses’ present address, but the use of the verb yibbēm (“to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law”) in 38:8 suggests this account was written from the perspective of Deuteronomy 25:5–10. A series of events threatened the line of Judah. His firstborn son, Er, died before his wife Tamar bore him a son; Onan refused to serve his brother as a yābām; Judah’s failure to arrange for his third son Shelah to marry Tamar. Tamar responded by tricking her father-in-law, Judah, to play the role of yābām, which led to the birth of twins, Perez and Zerah.34
Although the root ybm appears only once in the book of Ruth,35 the book in general and the procedure described in chapter 4 in particular involve the subject of our text. Whereas in Genesis 38 the widow Tamar took the initiative, here the mother of the deceased played that role. While Naomi recognized Boaz as a potential yābām, the fact that he was a more distant relative of Mahlon (perhaps uncle or cousin) may explain the use of the word gōʾēl (“near relative”; 2:20, et passim) instead of yābām. The scene in chapter 4 is the opposite of that envisioned in Deuteronomy 25:7–10. Unlike the unwilling yābām in our text, Boaz was eager to preserve the family and patrimony of a kinsman. Whereas the sandal ritual in Deuteronomy is cast as a shaming ritual, here the man who defers to Boaz voluntarily removed his shoe and handed it to Boaz (rather than Ruth)—not as an act of shame, but as legal attestation of a redemptive transaction (cf. Ruth 4:7). In the presence of witnesses, Boaz received the legal right to marry Ruth, and in this way secured the line of Elimelech and Mahlon (4:1–13).
The temptation to cheat in business deals by reducing or enlarging measuring instruments to one’s own advantage (vv. 13–16) afflicts every generation. The book of Proverbs raises the issue three times. In 16:11 the sage declares that no one—not even kings—may tinker with balances and scales because Yahweh owns them and establishes the definitions of “honest” instruments.36 In 20:10 and 23 the sage picks up the Deuteronomic expression of something that “the LORD detests”; but instead of applying the expression to the person who cheats this way, he applies it to the instruments used to cheat others.
The problem seems to have become especially acute in Israel and Judah as their respective dooms neared. In Amos 8:5 the prophet from Tekoa denounced merchants for shrinking the ephah and inflating the shekel and using false scales. A century and a half later, as part of his description of the new Israelite social and spiritual order, with apodictic authority Ezekiel called on princes not to oppress Yahweh’s people with false measuring instruments. Borrowing the language of Deuteronomy he demanded the use of “righteous” (ṣedeq) scales, ephahs, and baths (Ezek. 45:10–11). Although the New Testament never refers specifically to cheating with false measurements, Paul’s use of expressions like “dishonest gain” (1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:7) in his list of disqualifications from leadership positions probably includes cheating.
Contemporary Significance
RIGHTEOUSNESS. MANY REJECT THESE and most of Moses’ instructions as having no binding authority for Christians, for they are not explicitly reiterated in the New Testament, and in any case the eschatological new Israel of God has been established.37 However, this approach rejects the authority of Jesus Christ himself, who declared that he did not come to destroy the “law” (read “Torah”), but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17), and that the proof of covenant commitment (love) to him (the vine) is keeping his “command,” which functions as a collective expression for the revealed will of God (John 14:15, 21; 15:10).
It also neutralizes the force of Paul’s declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is authoritative and effective for training in “righteousness” (dikaiosynē), a thoroughly Deuteronomic notion. Although chapter 25 deals with specific domestic and economic issues that are culturally conditioned, the underlying theological and ethical principles certainly apply to the faith and conduct of the people of God in our day.
Serving the cause of justice. In verses 1–3 Moses reiterates the conviction that the function of legal procedures must always be to establish the truth, which means that when they are followed, the guilty will in fact be convicted and the innocent will be acquitted. Any system (including our own) that acquits those known to be guilty or convicts those known to be innocent cannot be considered a just system. When the guilty are acquitted on a technicality and the innocent are condemned because they do not have access to competent defense counsel, justice has not been served.
At the same time, the punishments appropriate to the crimes must be executed. Those responsible must be cautioned against excess on the one hand, and against dehumanization on the other. Even criminals are members of the community and image-bearers of God, whose dignity must be preserved. While we have been quick to point out the abuses of other countries in the misadministration of justice, the exposure of American treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib demonstrates that no society is immune to the temptation to abuse its captives.38
Animals. In verse 4 Moses calls for the humane treatment of domesticated animals. This charge has greatest relevance for farmers and others who use animals for draft purposes, but the principle underlying this statement extends to all involved in the raising of livestock and poultry. Although for economic reasons farmers cannot cave in to maddening and often naïve demands of some organizations that supposedly defend the rights of animals, the members of the community of faith should be exemplary in their fair and considerate treatment of their stock. Urbanites demand cheap meat, but they are removed from the practical need for farmers to make a living and often do not understand the issues involved in raising livestock. However, when for their own pleasure (as in the case of pets) or out of necessity (seeing-eye dogs), they add God’s creatures to their households, righteousness demands a commitment to humane care.
Paul takes the call for an unmuzzled ox in a different direction in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. He appeals to the ordinance to defend the right of those who serve the church to derive their living from the work they do in spreading the gospel. He asks the question, “Is it about oxen that God is concerned?” (1 Cor. 9:9). Assuming a negative answer, some argue that his rhetorical question is possible only if “ox” is interpreted figuratively of human beings.39 However, this is unnecessary if one interprets Deuteronomy 25:4 within the context of the entire chapter. Like Paul’s own statement, Moses’ instructions are addressed to human beings, not to animals. Throughout this chapter his concern has been to develop in his hearers, the people of God, a sensitive and considerate disposition, especially toward the vulnerable. Moses’ statement concerning the ox fits this agenda perfectly, extending even to animals the theological principle that in God’s economy all workers, human or animal, deserve reward for their labor.40
The integrity of the family. In verses 5–12 Moses charged his people to be conscientious in defending the integrity of the family. This defense takes place at two levels. (1) It involves each household member looking out for the interests of the others. In this context that meant the establishment of the levirate marriage as an institution to ensure the continued existence of each branch of a family tree. A culture that fails to value children as the continuation of the life of their parents will diminish the dignity and joy of parenthood and soon begin to treat them as independent entities that may be disposed of at will. Christians would do well to recover the notion of the extended family as an organic unity, whose health depends on the well-being of each member. (2) At the same time, we must nurture the sense of privilege that attends with parenthood by affirming and encouraging maternal and paternal instincts in all who come of age. Meanwhile, verses 11–12 caution against behavior within the family that is immodest or threatening to the short- and long-term health of its members.
Business dealings. In verses 13–16 Moses has appealed to the community of faith to be exemplary in their business dealings. A more relevant issue in the entire book than the call for integrity in all economic transactions can scarcely be imagined. Honest and fair calculation of transactions and scrupulous payment of debts should be the hallmark of those who claim to be God’s people. The problem exists not only at the highest levels, as in the outrageous thievery of Bernie Madoff, who bilked trusting investors of billions of dollars, but at the local checkout counter of the grocery store, where we may be tempted to overlook a miscalculation by the clerk in our favor, and in our offices as we fill out our tax forms. Of course the principle does not apply only to mercantile and financial matters; it also applies to the exchange of ideas (e.g., plagiarism). In a society that seems to become more unethical by the day, Christians should stand out for the fidelity and integrity with which they conduct their business.
Original Meaning
Safeguarding Righteousness in Relation to Male Sexuality (25:5–12)
DEUTERONOMY 25:5–12 presents two scenarios with sexual and procreational undertones and involving shameful male (vv. 5–10) and female behavior (vv. 11–12). However, the paragraphs are linked lexically by the expression “brother/brothers” (cf. also vv. 3 and 5).
Maintaining righteousness in the face of shameful male behavior (vv. 5–10). As we have observed in earlier texts, verses 5–10 subdivide into a main case (vv. 5–6) and a corollary issue (vv. 7–10). Both concern the social institution of “levirate marriage.” A levirate marriage is a legally sanctioned union between a widow, whose husband has died without having fathered offspring, and the brother of the deceased. Although Deuteronomy 25:5–10 provides the only formal instruction on the institution in the Old Testament, variations of this type of marriage are widely attested in the ancient world (cf. Gen. 38; Ruth 4).6
The levirate institution actually addressed two problems arising from the death of a man without an heir. (1) By marrying the deceased’s widow, the yābām (“brother-in-law; Lat. levir) offered her economic security and physical protection. (2) However, the primary concern here is not the material well-being of the widow, but securing progeny for her deceased husband. Grounded in the conviction that parents lived on in their children7 and children perpetuate the “name” of their fathers, the levirate addressed the worst curse imaginable—to have one’s “seed” cut off and one’s name forgotten.8
Through the levirate institution the yābām could preserve the name of the deceased (Ruth 4:10) and raise up/provide seed for his brother (Gen. 38:8–9). However, this social solution complicated issues of inheritance. Given the links between family and patrimony, in Israel it was critical that property stay within the family (cf. Ruth 4:3, 5, 10). What Moses offers here is not a comprehensive law redressing all these issues, but a pastoral appeal to maintain “the moral integrity and social solidarity”9 of Israelite families once they have settled in the land. The well-being of the community depends on the preservation of each branch of the family tree and the continued tie of each branch with its patrimonial holdings.
The main case (vv. 5–6) involves two brothers living together. Since one is obviously married, they are not necessarily living under the same roof, though they are part of the same household10 and responsible for each other’s welfare.11 Tragedy strikes the household when the married brother dies without having fathered a child to continue his branch of the family tree. This left his widow with two options. Either she could return to her own father’s household, free to remarry any person she pleased,12 or she could remain a part of her husband’s household, which obligated a surviving male of the deceased’s family to marry her.
Only the latter scenario is envisioned here. Verses 5b–6 describe the righteous response to this situation. Beginning with a prohibition directed at the widow, Moses forbids her from marrying someone “outside the family,” for this would not solve the issue of progeny for the deceased. The remainder of verse 5 instructs the deceased’s brother how to respond: He must engage in sexual intercourse with his widowed sister-in-law, take her for his wife, and perform the duties of a yābām. While the order of these clauses defies custom, the arrangement assumes such a close correlation between marriage and intercourse that these expressions may be interchanged. In no way may this be considered a concession to premarital sex, since the Old Testament never sanctions sexual intercourse or the raising of children outside a permanent marital union.13
Verse 6 assumes that the marriage and sexual intercourse achieve their intended goal; the woman conceives and gives birth to a son. While this son is literally her firstborn, as elsewhere the designation bekôr refers to his sociological rank, not his chronological priority.14 Whatever the bekôr’s role in other circumstances, here he represents the deceased’s line; through him both the deceased’s name and the integrity of the family patrimony are preserved.
Moses expresses this notion with a strange idiom, translated literally “to rise on the name of the deceased brother,”15 meaning to establish the deceased’s name on his patrimony and prevent his name from being cut off from his kinsfolk (Ruth 4:5; 10). The declared purpose of this marriage was to prevent his name from being “blotted out from Israel.” Since family units were sacrosanct, to blot out a man’s name meant lopping his branch off the family tree. The institution of levirate marriage provided a legal way to maintain the family line. The son whom the widow bears for the levir will take the name of the deceased as his patronym, and he will then live on through this son and his descendants.
The instructions for the corollary case (vv. 7–10) assume the possibility of exemption for men who prefer not to perform the duties of a levir, though this refusal was not to be taken lightly and involved the stigma of shame. The text does not say why a man might not want to marry his brother’s widow,16 but with remarkable latitude Moses authorizes an unwilling levir to opt out of his moral and legal obligations. As in the case of divorce (24:1–4), the process prescribed seeks to safeguard the reputation and well-being of the woman who has been struck by two tragedies—the death of her husband and rejection by his brother. Described in considerable detail, the procedure for dealing with an unwilling “brother” allows for a virtuous17 and assertive18 response by an aggrieved widow.
(1) Moses authorizes the bereaved widow to present her complaint before the elders at the town gate (v. 7b). As a legally competent plaintiff, he invites her to present her case before the body responsible for applying Israel’s family laws.19 Having lost her husband, who would otherwise defend her interests, she may appeal to the elders to stand up for her. In addition to authorizing women to take their cases to the elders, he also advises the women on how to present their case. Dictating the speech they are to present to the elders, Moses instructs women to declare forthrightly how her brother-in-law has failed his brother by refusing to establish his name in Israel, for he refuses to perform the duties of a yābām for her.
(2) Moses charges the elders to summon the yābām and speak to him (v. 8a). While not prescribing what they should say, the sequel suggests their goal should be to change his mind, presumably by encouraging him to place the well-being of others above self-interest.
(3) Moses offers the yābām the opportunity to speak for himself (v. 8b) and to declare his refusal publicly. His disposition is reflected both in the verb “to persist” and in his declaration, “I do not wish to marry her.”
(4) Moses prescribes a ritual of public humiliation of the yābām, consisting of several elements. In the sight of the elders the widow is to approach her brother-in-law, pull one of his sandals from his foot, spit in his face, and finally interpret her actions in a public declaration (v. 9). The action represented a symbolic action of shame, but it also symbolized the transfer of the brother-in-law’s rights to the deceased’s widow and to that portion of the patrimonial estate that her husband would have received when it was divided.20 Since the woman would take the sandal home, it would function like a receipt, providing concrete proof of the present legal proceedings (cf. Ruth 4:7–8).21
Spitting in the face of the yābām is obviously a rude gesture, but with her declaration “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line,” the widow shows this response is neither impulsive nor idiosyncratic, but accords with established legal procedure. By refusing to be a surrogate father for his deceased brother, the yābām is responsible for annihilating the man’s name from Israel (cf. v. 6).
These instructions on maintaining righteousness in domestic crises end with a summary of the significance of the ritual (v. 10). The yâbâm who refused to guarantee the memory of his brother may indeed build a house of his own. However, in perpetuity it will be branded as the household of the man who rejected responsibility for the well-being of his own brother, and ultimately the communal good. Interpreted genealogically as “The Family of the Unsandaled,” his progeny will bear the stigma of his shameful conduct.
Maintaining righteousness in the face of shameful female behavior (vv. 11–12). This short paragraph is linked to the preceding by vocabulary, characters, and motif. However, whereas the previous paragraph concerns shameful behavior by the brother-in-law, this fragment involves shameful behavior by a wife.22 On the surface, this text recalls Exodus 21:18–19 and 22–25. However, while in Exodus 21:22–25 she was an innocent and passive victim caught in the crossfire of struggling men, here the woman interferes in the fight.
The NIV obscures the likelihood that the men in this scenario are brothers, probably living in the family compound (cf. v. 5). The text offers no cause for the altercation, but in light of the preceding they may have been fighting over inheritance or their respective roles on the estate. The paragraph opens by drawing attention to the men fighting, but the primary interest is in the wife of one of the combatants, who tries to intervene. Her intention is explicitly declared: She wants to rescue her husband from the “hand” of the person who is beating him up. The scene seems strange, since women would hesitate to intervene in such circumstances. However, the primary issue here is not the fact that she would defend her husband, but her tactics: She reaches out and grabs his genitals. From the grammar and syntax of the passage as well as the severity of the punishment, this is no innocent gesture; her action is deliberate.
The punishment prescribed seems harsh,23 and the demand to cut off the woman’s hand (v. 12) is shocking and unparalleled in the Old Testament.24 Since yād may be used euphemistically for genitalia,25 some view this as a form of the lex talionis, the woman’s hand representing a counterpart to the man’s sexual organ.26 However, the physiological differences between men and women preclude a literal application of the talion, and in any case the man has not been injured physically. The reference to the man’s genitals as “his appendage of shame”27 suggests the issue is the woman’s shamelessness and immodesty.28 Whereas verses 5–10 had involved a man who had wrongfully withheld his genitals from a woman, this case involves a man whose genitals have been shamelessly grabbed, perhaps with the intent of injury so he cannot have children.29 The admonition “show her no pity” highlights the seriousness of the crime and the importance of carrying out the punishment against one who threatens the integrity of the branch of the family tree represented by the man whose genitals were attacked.30
Bridging Contexts
ELSEWHERE IN THE OLD Testament. On this note Moses’ pastoral exposition of the statutes, ordinances, and laws revealed by Yahweh through him to Israel at Sinai and later (cf. 12:1) comes to an end. From 12:2–25:16 he has been appealing to his people to demonstrate the wholehearted loyalty to Yahweh he called for in chapters 6–11 in exclusive worship of him (12:2–16:17) and by scrupulous adherence to the terms of the covenant as spelled out previously. In so doing he has sought to apply those terms particularly to the new situation the people will face once they have crossed the Jordan, displaced the Canaanites, and occupied the land. In this chapter Moses has addressed four principal issues, each of which has implications for the faith and conduct of God’s people in our own day.
These issues do not all surface in later writings. Exodus 21:20 refers to a criminal case involving a master beating his servant with a rod, but 1 Kings 12:11 contains the only reference to flogging in Hebrew narratives. Here Rehoboam speaks of disciplining workers with whips and scorpions, that is, barbed whips.33 Beating was a common means of punishment, but no case of judicial beating as prescribed in verses 1–2 is recorded. In the New Testament, Jesus’ beating was but one of the many illegal features of his arrest and trial (Luke 22:63).
The events of Genesis 38 happened long before Moses’ present address, but the use of the verb yibbēm (“to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law”) in 38:8 suggests this account was written from the perspective of Deuteronomy 25:5–10. A series of events threatened the line of Judah. His firstborn son, Er, died before his wife Tamar bore him a son; Onan refused to serve his brother as a yābām; Judah’s failure to arrange for his third son Shelah to marry Tamar. Tamar responded by tricking her father-in-law, Judah, to play the role of yābām, which led to the birth of twins, Perez and Zerah.34
Although the root ybm appears only once in the book of Ruth,35 the book in general and the procedure described in chapter 4 in particular involve the subject of our text. Whereas in Genesis 38 the widow Tamar took the initiative, here the mother of the deceased played that role. While Naomi recognized Boaz as a potential yābām, the fact that he was a more distant relative of Mahlon (perhaps uncle or cousin) may explain the use of the word gōʾēl (“near relative”; 2:20, et passim) instead of yābām. The scene in chapter 4 is the opposite of that envisioned in Deuteronomy 25:7–10. Unlike the unwilling yābām in our text, Boaz was eager to preserve the family and patrimony of a kinsman. Whereas the sandal ritual in Deuteronomy is cast as a shaming ritual, here the man who defers to Boaz voluntarily removed his shoe and handed it to Boaz (rather than Ruth)—not as an act of shame, but as legal attestation of a redemptive transaction (cf. Ruth 4:7). In the presence of witnesses, Boaz received the legal right to marry Ruth, and in this way secured the line of Elimelech and Mahlon (4:1–13).
The temptation to cheat in business deals by reducing or enlarging measuring instruments to one’s own advantage (vv. 13–16) afflicts every generation. The book of Proverbs raises the issue three times. In 16:11 the sage declares that no one—not even kings—may tinker with balances and scales because Yahweh owns them and establishes the definitions of “honest” instruments.36 In 20:10 and 23 the sage picks up the Deuteronomic expression of something that “the LORD detests”; but instead of applying the expression to the person who cheats this way, he applies it to the instruments used to cheat others.
The problem seems to have become especially acute in Israel and Judah as their respective dooms neared. In Amos 8:5 the prophet from Tekoa denounced merchants for shrinking the ephah and inflating the shekel and using false scales. A century and a half later, as part of his description of the new Israelite social and spiritual order, with apodictic authority Ezekiel called on princes not to oppress Yahweh’s people with false measuring instruments. Borrowing the language of Deuteronomy he demanded the use of “righteous” (ṣedeq) scales, ephahs, and baths (Ezek. 45:10–11). Although the New Testament never refers specifically to cheating with false measurements, Paul’s use of expressions like “dishonest gain” (1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:7) in his list of disqualifications from leadership positions probably includes cheating.
Contemporary Significance
RIGHTEOUSNESS. MANY REJECT THESE and most of Moses’ instructions as having no binding authority for Christians, for they are not explicitly reiterated in the New Testament, and in any case the eschatological new Israel of God has been established.37 However, this approach rejects the authority of Jesus Christ himself, who declared that he did not come to destroy the “law” (read “Torah”), but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17), and that the proof of covenant commitment (love) to him (the vine) is keeping his “command,” which functions as a collective expression for the revealed will of God (John 14:15, 21; 15:10).
It also neutralizes the force of Paul’s declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is authoritative and effective for training in “righteousness” (dikaiosynē), a thoroughly Deuteronomic notion. Although chapter 25 deals with specific domestic and economic issues that are culturally conditioned, the underlying theological and ethical principles certainly apply to the faith and conduct of the people of God in our day.
Serving the cause of justice. In verses 1–3 Moses reiterates the conviction that the function of legal procedures must always be to establish the truth, which means that when they are followed, the guilty will in fact be convicted and the innocent will be acquitted. Any system (including our own) that acquits those known to be guilty or convicts those known to be innocent cannot be considered a just system. When the guilty are acquitted on a technicality and the innocent are condemned because they do not have access to competent defense counsel, justice has not been served.
At the same time, the punishments appropriate to the crimes must be executed. Those responsible must be cautioned against excess on the one hand, and against dehumanization on the other. Even criminals are members of the community and image-bearers of God, whose dignity must be preserved. While we have been quick to point out the abuses of other countries in the misadministration of justice, the exposure of American treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib demonstrates that no society is immune to the temptation to abuse its captives.38
Animals. In verse 4 Moses calls for the humane treatment of domesticated animals. This charge has greatest relevance for farmers and others who use animals for draft purposes, but the principle underlying this statement extends to all involved in the raising of livestock and poultry. Although for economic reasons farmers cannot cave in to maddening and often naïve demands of some organizations that supposedly defend the rights of animals, the members of the community of faith should be exemplary in their fair and considerate treatment of their stock. Urbanites demand cheap meat, but they are removed from the practical need for farmers to make a living and often do not understand the issues involved in raising livestock. However, when for their own pleasure (as in the case of pets) or out of necessity (seeing-eye dogs), they add God’s creatures to their households, righteousness demands a commitment to humane care.
Paul takes the call for an unmuzzled ox in a different direction in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. He appeals to the ordinance to defend the right of those who serve the church to derive their living from the work they do in spreading the gospel. He asks the question, “Is it about oxen that God is concerned?” (1 Cor. 9:9). Assuming a negative answer, some argue that his rhetorical question is possible only if “ox” is interpreted figuratively of human beings.39 However, this is unnecessary if one interprets Deuteronomy 25:4 within the context of the entire chapter. Like Paul’s own statement, Moses’ instructions are addressed to human beings, not to animals. Throughout this chapter his concern has been to develop in his hearers, the people of God, a sensitive and considerate disposition, especially toward the vulnerable. Moses’ statement concerning the ox fits this agenda perfectly, extending even to animals the theological principle that in God’s economy all workers, human or animal, deserve reward for their labor.40
The integrity of the family. In verses 5–12 Moses charged his people to be conscientious in defending the integrity of the family. This defense takes place at two levels. (1) It involves each household member looking out for the interests of the others. In this context that meant the establishment of the levirate marriage as an institution to ensure the continued existence of each branch of a family tree. A culture that fails to value children as the continuation of the life of their parents will diminish the dignity and joy of parenthood and soon begin to treat them as independent entities that may be disposed of at will. Christians would do well to recover the notion of the extended family as an organic unity, whose health depends on the well-being of each member. (2) At the same time, we must nurture the sense of privilege that attends with parenthood by affirming and encouraging maternal and paternal instincts in all who come of age. Meanwhile, verses 11–12 caution against behavior within the family that is immodest or threatening to the short- and long-term health of its members.
Business dealings. In verses 13–16 Moses has appealed to the community of faith to be exemplary in their business dealings. A more relevant issue in the entire book than the call for integrity in all economic transactions can scarcely be imagined. Honest and fair calculation of transactions and scrupulous payment of debts should be the hallmark of those who claim to be God’s people. The problem exists not only at the highest levels, as in the outrageous thievery of Bernie Madoff, who bilked trusting investors of billions of dollars, but at the local checkout counter of the grocery store, where we may be tempted to overlook a miscalculation by the clerk in our favor, and in our offices as we fill out our tax forms. Of course the principle does not apply only to mercantile and financial matters; it also applies to the exchange of ideas (e.g., plagiarism). In a society that seems to become more unethical by the day, Christians should stand out for the fidelity and integrity with which they conduct their business.
Original Meaning
Safeguarding Righteousness in Business Transactions (25:13–16)
MOSES CONCLUDES HIS INSTRUCTIONS on righteous living by considering an aspect of life that may be most vulnerable to compromise: everyday economic transactions. These instructions build on Yahweh’s own statements in Leviticus 19:35–36. With his twofold reference to ṣedeq here in verse 15 (NIV “honest,” which occurs 2x in Heb.; lit., “righteous”), Moses creates a striking inclusio with 16:20 (see comments). The significance of the problem of cheating in business deals throughout the ancient Near East is reflected in the wide range of materials that allude to it.31
The present economic fragment divides into three parts, each made up of a pair of statements. The first two pairs consist of perfectly parallel commands cast in apodictic form (vv. 13–14 and 15b, respectively), and the last, of a pair of motive clauses (vv. 15c–16). Verses 13–14 involve the two principal means of measuring commodities. The term ʾeben (lit., “stone”) denotes the weights used on balances to weigh goods.32 This text warns against having two different sets of weights, the lighter one to be used when calculating payment one owes, and the heavier to calculate commodities or money one was owed. The word kîs identifies the pouch or bag in which merchants carried their weights. The term “ʾêpâ” (NIV “measures”) denotes the size of a vessel used to measure liquid and dry goods.
Verse 15 reiterates Moses’ concern for honesty by rephrasing positively his negative commands in verses 13–14. The word ṣedeq (“righteous”; NIV “honest”) means “in accordance with absolute standards.” Together these words create a hendiadys, meaning “perfectly honest” weights and measures. With keen pastoral sense, in verses 15b–16 Moses tries to motivate integrity in business, first by promising long life in the land that Yahweh is giving the Israelites as a reward for honesty, and then by warning that all who commit crimes involving unjust weights and measures are abominable to Yahweh (cf. 18:12; 22:5).
Bridging Contexts
ELSEWHERE IN THE OLD Testament. On this note Moses’ pastoral exposition of the statutes, ordinances, and laws revealed by Yahweh through him to Israel at Sinai and later (cf. 12:1) comes to an end. From 12:2–25:16 he has been appealing to his people to demonstrate the wholehearted loyalty to Yahweh he called for in chapters 6–11 in exclusive worship of him (12:2–16:17) and by scrupulous adherence to the terms of the covenant as spelled out previously. In so doing he has sought to apply those terms particularly to the new situation the people will face once they have crossed the Jordan, displaced the Canaanites, and occupied the land. In this chapter Moses has addressed four principal issues, each of which has implications for the faith and conduct of God’s people in our own day.
These issues do not all surface in later writings. Exodus 21:20 refers to a criminal case involving a master beating his servant with a rod, but 1 Kings 12:11 contains the only reference to flogging in Hebrew narratives. Here Rehoboam speaks of disciplining workers with whips and scorpions, that is, barbed whips.33 Beating was a common means of punishment, but no case of judicial beating as prescribed in verses 1–2 is recorded. In the New Testament, Jesus’ beating was but one of the many illegal features of his arrest and trial (Luke 22:63).
The events of Genesis 38 happened long before Moses’ present address, but the use of the verb yibbēm (“to fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law”) in 38:8 suggests this account was written from the perspective of Deuteronomy 25:5–10. A series of events threatened the line of Judah. His firstborn son, Er, died before his wife Tamar bore him a son; Onan refused to serve his brother as a yābām; Judah’s failure to arrange for his third son Shelah to marry Tamar. Tamar responded by tricking her father-in-law, Judah, to play the role of yābām, which led to the birth of twins, Perez and Zerah.34
Although the root ybm appears only once in the book of Ruth,35 the book in general and the procedure described in chapter 4 in particular involve the subject of our text. Whereas in Genesis 38 the widow Tamar took the initiative, here the mother of the deceased played that role. While Naomi recognized Boaz as a potential yābām, the fact that he was a more distant relative of Mahlon (perhaps uncle or cousin) may explain the use of the word gōʾēl (“near relative”; 2:20, et passim) instead of yābām. The scene in chapter 4 is the opposite of that envisioned in Deuteronomy 25:7–10. Unlike the unwilling yābām in our text, Boaz was eager to preserve the family and patrimony of a kinsman. Whereas the sandal ritual in Deuteronomy is cast as a shaming ritual, here the man who defers to Boaz voluntarily removed his shoe and handed it to Boaz (rather than Ruth)—not as an act of shame, but as legal attestation of a redemptive transaction (cf. Ruth 4:7). In the presence of witnesses, Boaz received the legal right to marry Ruth, and in this way secured the line of Elimelech and Mahlon (4:1–13).
The temptation to cheat in business deals by reducing or enlarging measuring instruments to one’s own advantage (vv. 13–16) afflicts every generation. The book of Proverbs raises the issue three times. In 16:11 the sage declares that no one—not even kings—may tinker with balances and scales because Yahweh owns them and establishes the definitions of “honest” instruments.36 In 20:10 and 23 the sage picks up the Deuteronomic expression of something that “the LORD detests”; but instead of applying the expression to the person who cheats this way, he applies it to the instruments used to cheat others.
The problem seems to have become especially acute in Israel and Judah as their respective dooms neared. In Amos 8:5 the prophet from Tekoa denounced merchants for shrinking the ephah and inflating the shekel and using false scales. A century and a half later, as part of his description of the new Israelite social and spiritual order, with apodictic authority Ezekiel called on princes not to oppress Yahweh’s people with false measuring instruments. Borrowing the language of Deuteronomy he demanded the use of “righteous” (ṣedeq) scales, ephahs, and baths (Ezek. 45:10–11). Although the New Testament never refers specifically to cheating with false measurements, Paul’s use of expressions like “dishonest gain” (1 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:7) in his list of disqualifications from leadership positions probably includes cheating.
Contemporary Significance
RIGHTEOUSNESS. MANY REJECT THESE and most of Moses’ instructions as having no binding authority for Christians, for they are not explicitly reiterated in the New Testament, and in any case the eschatological new Israel of God has been established.37 However, this approach rejects the authority of Jesus Christ himself, who declared that he did not come to destroy the “law” (read “Torah”), but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17), and that the proof of covenant commitment (love) to him (the vine) is keeping his “command,” which functions as a collective expression for the revealed will of God (John 14:15, 21; 15:10).
It also neutralizes the force of Paul’s declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is authoritative and effective for training in “righteousness” (dikaiosynē), a thoroughly Deuteronomic notion. Although chapter 25 deals with specific domestic and economic issues that are culturally conditioned, the underlying theological and ethical principles certainly apply to the faith and conduct of the people of God in our day.
Serving the cause of justice. In verses 1–3 Moses reiterates the conviction that the function of legal procedures must always be to establish the truth, which means that when they are followed, the guilty will in fact be convicted and the innocent will be acquitted. Any system (including our own) that acquits those known to be guilty or convicts those known to be innocent cannot be considered a just system. When the guilty are acquitted on a technicality and the innocent are condemned because they do not have access to competent defense counsel, justice has not been served.
At the same time, the punishments appropriate to the crimes must be executed. Those responsible must be cautioned against excess on the one hand, and against dehumanization on the other. Even criminals are members of the community and image-bearers of God, whose dignity must be preserved. While we have been quick to point out the abuses of other countries in the misadministration of justice, the exposure of American treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib demonstrates that no society is immune to the temptation to abuse its captives.38
Animals. In verse 4 Moses calls for the humane treatment of domesticated animals. This charge has greatest relevance for farmers and others who use animals for draft purposes, but the principle underlying this statement extends to all involved in the raising of livestock and poultry. Although for economic reasons farmers cannot cave in to maddening and often naïve demands of some organizations that supposedly defend the rights of animals, the members of the community of faith should be exemplary in their fair and considerate treatment of their stock. Urbanites demand cheap meat, but they are removed from the practical need for farmers to make a living and often do not understand the issues involved in raising livestock. However, when for their own pleasure (as in the case of pets) or out of necessity (seeing-eye dogs), they add God’s creatures to their households, righteousness demands a commitment to humane care.
Paul takes the call for an unmuzzled ox in a different direction in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18. He appeals to the ordinance to defend the right of those who serve the church to derive their living from the work they do in spreading the gospel. He asks the question, “Is it about oxen that God is concerned?” (1 Cor. 9:9). Assuming a negative answer, some argue that his rhetorical question is possible only if “ox” is interpreted figuratively of human beings.39 However, this is unnecessary if one interprets Deuteronomy 25:4 within the context of the entire chapter. Like Paul’s own statement, Moses’ instructions are addressed to human beings, not to animals. Throughout this chapter his concern has been to develop in his hearers, the people of God, a sensitive and considerate disposition, especially toward the vulnerable. Moses’ statement concerning the ox fits this agenda perfectly, extending even to animals the theological principle that in God’s economy all workers, human or animal, deserve reward for their labor.40
The integrity of the family. In verses 5–12 Moses charged his people to be conscientious in defending the integrity of the family. This defense takes place at two levels. (1) It involves each household member looking out for the interests of the others. In this context that meant the establishment of the levirate marriage as an institution to ensure the continued existence of each branch of a family tree. A culture that fails to value children as the continuation of the life of their parents will diminish the dignity and joy of parenthood and soon begin to treat them as independent entities that may be disposed of at will. Christians would do well to recover the notion of the extended family as an organic unity, whose health depends on the well-being of each member. (2) At the same time, we must nurture the sense of privilege that attends with parenthood by affirming and encouraging maternal and paternal instincts in all who come of age. Meanwhile, verses 11–12 caution against behavior within the family that is immodest or threatening to the short- and long-term health of its members.
Business dealings. In verses 13–16 Moses has appealed to the community of faith to be exemplary in their business dealings. A more relevant issue in the entire book than the call for integrity in all economic transactions can scarcely be imagined. Honest and fair calculation of transactions and scrupulous payment of debts should be the hallmark of those who claim to be God’s people. The problem exists not only at the highest levels, as in the outrageous thievery of Bernie Madoff, who bilked trusting investors of billions of dollars, but at the local checkout counter of the grocery store, where we may be tempted to overlook a miscalculation by the clerk in our favor, and in our offices as we fill out our tax forms. Of course the principle does not apply only to mercantile and financial matters; it also applies to the exchange of ideas (e.g., plagiarism). In a society that seems to become more unethical by the day, Christians should stand out for the fidelity and integrity with which they conduct their business.