Chapter Twenty-Five
Another Set of Miscellaneous Regulations - Part Two
25:1 “If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, 2 then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense. 3 Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight.
Moses gives the people of Israel an inside view on how the judges are to function. If a dispute arises between two or more individuals, they are to seek a legal decision by a judge. These judges are typically located at the “city gates”,[1] the word translated here as ‘court’, is ‘miš·pāṭ’,[2] referring to a legal decision, not a facility as the term implies today.[3] The judges are to determine which party (if any) is right (or innocent) and which one is wrong (or guilty). If the guilty person has violated any rule or regulation the judge is to pronounce the appropriate punishment. The judge has the authority to force the guilty person to fall before him and be whipped (Hebrew word ‘mǎk·kā(h)’,[4] often translated as ‘stripes’, refers to a blow from a sword, rod, tree branch, whip, etc., or the wound from a blow, in punishment it usually refers to being whipped; the context of verses two and three imply some form of flogging).
The actual number of strikes (stripes) by a rod, branch, or whip was to be determined by the judge based on the circumstances of the crime. Verse three introduces the concept of restricting the amount of punishment allowed when being flogged. Here the text states that the maximum number of strikes is forty, any more would be considered degrading (Hebrew ‘niq·lā(h)’,[5] belittled, despised) in the sight of others.
Later in the New Testament the practice of flogging forty times less one is recorded by the apostle Paul (see 2 Corinthians 11:24) and may have influenced the amount of punishment Jesus received prior to His crucifixion (see Matthew 20:19; 27:26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:16; John 19:1, Jesus was flogged before being crucified, however there is no mention as to how many strikes He received). The punishment of 39 strikes instead of 40 is often considered a form of mercy, as 40 lashes is thought to be the equivalent of putting someone to death. According to the Mishnah Tractate Makkot,[6] the forty lashes minus one appears to be over the concern of potential poor counting, a precaution to prevent the punishment from going over the count of 40 by accident. However, there is no reason to believe that the Romans at the time of Jesus’ flogging were following Jewish law, due to the absence of any Roman law preventing more lashes, Jesus may have received many more (see Considerations below).
25:4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.
A typical threshing of grain began by loosening the edible portion of the grain from the chaff by either beating it or by trampling it with something heavy. Then once separated, the pile could be tossed into the wind allowing the non-edible portion to be carried by the wind, which is why most threshing floors were outdoors and near ridges or on hills that had regular wind. Animals were often employed to trample out grain that was just harvested and the animal of choice was the ox.
It is understandable why someone might want to muzzle an ox, if the ox saw the grain and was hungry, it would stop the threshing and eat some of the grain. Here in this brief sentence, it clearly forbids the practice. This humanitarian instruction has been explained in many ways, most believe it would not be fair to an ox to deprive it from eating its share of the work (see Proverbs 12:10), plus it could lead to frustrating the animal which could result in potential damage or injury.
Considerations
During the time of Jesus, it is believed that flogging regularly preceded Roman crucifixions. The Roman whip used for this type flogging (referred to as a scourge) would typically have several leather thongs with bits of metal, bone, or glass embedded in the leather attached to the end of the whip. As a result of the beatings Jesus received from the Temple guards (not typically part of the punishment, see Matthew 27:27-31; John 19:3) and the flogging, it is doubtful He was recognizable afterwards. The prophet Isaiah foretold of this event several hundred years earlier: “Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind.” (Isaiah 52:13-14) Jesus’ disfiguration could explain why He was not recognized by His disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection (see Luke 24:13-32).
Regardless of the number of lashes Jesus received, that scourging was horrific and undoubtedly very painful. It is important to remember that it was through His suffering, death, and subsequent resurrection that Christians are saved. Again, Isaiah pointing to the future salvation offered by Jesus wrote, “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5) The suffering that Jesus faced to save humanity was very real, to understand a love like that is perhaps beyond human understanding, but it is true nonetheless (see John 3:16).
Regulations Regarding Levirate Marriage
25:5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
The continuation of family names and the proper distribution of family inheritances were important to God and to the people of Israel, as seen in the stories of the sons of Judah (see Genesis 38:6-10) and the daughters of Zelophehad (see Numbers 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:1-12). In the scenario outlined here, if a son of a family that has at least two married sons dies without having any son of their own, the other son is to take the wife of his brother as his own wife to perpetuate the brother’s name. This passage is often referred to as the law of levirate marriage (a Latin term meaning “husband’s brother,” or brother-in-law, the word is not associated with Levi, the tribe of Levi, Leviticus, or the Levitical priesthood).[7] There is also one other condition, “If brothers dwell together.” The Hebrew word ‘yē·šeḇû’,[8] can refer to dwelling or inhabiting, but it is not specific as to what they are inhabiting. In Genesis 13:6 and 36:7 the word refers to dwelling near each other, not necessarily in the same house.
If a married man, that had one or more brothers, did not have any sons of his own when he died, the wife of the dead man was to marry one of his brothers (typically the eldest).[9] Then the first son born (Hebrew ‘beḵǒr’,[10] refers to any firstborn, regardless of gender but context implies a son from verse five) from this union was to take on the name of her previous husband to perpetuate his name (lineage) in Israel. Some translations, including the Septuagint, translate the Hebrew word ‘ḇēn’[11] in verse five as ‘offspring’, referring to either gender, instead of ’son’.
25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’
However, if the brother chooses not to marry his dead brother’s wife, then the widow was to go to the town gate before the elders and proclaim, “My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.” The elders are then to talk and attempt to persuade the brother to do his duty. If he continues to forfeit being the husband for his dead brother’s wife, he is to be publicly humiliated by having his sandal pulled off his foot[12] and be spit in the face by the dead brother’s wife. She is to further state that his family name will be known as, “The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.” Per the Talmud, if there were several brothers each brother would be asked, beginning with the eldest brother.
There could be several legitimate reasons for not wanting to be her husband, including financial difficulties, health concerns, or possibly some issues with existing wife. However, being the husband to his brother’s widow would be considered the honorable action.
It is interesting to note that since a marriage could only be revoked by either divorce or death, and one of the goals of marriage was to raise children, this levirate process was further expanded and amplified in the Tractate Yebamot of the Talmud.
Another Set of Miscellaneous Regulations - Part Three
25:11 “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.
If two men get into a fight and one of the men’s wives attempt to intervene by seizing the other man’s genitals, she is to have her hand cut off. While this regulation seems to reflect the basic intention and nature of Exodus 21:18-19, 22-25 (life for life, tooth for a tooth, etc.), the punishment is often thought to be excessive, which is why many have attempted to offer alternate interpretations, including one that states that the woman is only to be fined the equivalent of her hand’s worth. However, like most of the alternate explanations, that would require the text to be taken out of context.[13]
25:13 “You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. 14 You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. 15 A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. 16 For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.
This regulation did not necessarily prohibit carrying various measures, it was primarily aimed at their use. The object as to prevent unfair trading where the difference in weight or measure would be used to cheat others, resulting in a more favorable outcome for oneself. Being representatives of God, the people of Israel were to always treat others honestly and be fair in their transactions. In addition to being unfair and against God’s law, the practice would be unnecessary as God would have provided everything they needed.
25:17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.
This refers to the time the Amalekites came out to fight the people of Israel shortly after Moses struck the rock at Rephidim for water (see Exodus 17:8-16). It was after that battle when God told Moses to, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The LORD Is My Banner, saying, “A hand upon the throne of the LORD! The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” (Exodus 17:14-16) When they have successfully usurped the inhabitants of the Promised Land, they were then to remember to annihilate any remaining Amalekites, eliminating the name Amalek from existence. While the motivation of Amalek’s desire to fight the people of Israel is unknown, God had them eliminated from existence. Although this did not happen until David engaged them many years later (see 1 Samuel 30, see also commentary under Exodus 17:14-16).
⇐Previous Chapter (Introduction/Index) Next Chapter⇒
[1] See commentary under Genesis 19:1-3; 34:18-24.
[2] Strong’s Hebrew 4941.
[3] See commentary under Exodus 21:1; Leviticus 27:34.
[4] Strong’s Hebrew 4347.
[5] Strong’s Hebrew 7034.
[6] Neusner, J. (1988). The Mishnah : A new translation (pp. 618–619). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[7] See commentary under Genesis 38:6-10.
[8] Strong’s Hebrew 3427.
[9] Talmud Tractate Yebamot Folio 24A
[10] Strong’s Hebrew 1060.
[11] Strong’s Hebrew 1121.
[12] See Considerations under Exodus 3:7-12.
[13] Talmud Tractate Bama Qamma Folio 27A. Neusner, J. (2011). The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Vol. 13, p. 106). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.