Text -- Deuteronomy 25:4-19 (NET)

25:4 You must not muzzle your ox when it is treading grain.

Respect for the Sanctity of Others

25:5 If brothers live together and one of them dies without having a son, the dead man’s wife must not remarry someone outside the family. Instead, her late husband’s brother must go to her, marry her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law. 25:6 Then the first son she bears will continue the name of the dead brother, thus preventing his name from being blotted out of Israel. 25:7 But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, then she must go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to preserve his brother’s name in Israel; he is unwilling to perform the duty of a brother-in-law to me!” 25:8 Then the elders of his city must summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying, “I don’t want to marry her,” 25:9 then his sister-in-law must approach him in view of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, and spit in his face. She will then respond, “Thus may it be done to any man who does not maintain his brother’s family line!” 25:10 His family name will be referred to in Israel as “the family of the one whose sandal was removed.” 25:11 If two men get into a hand-to-hand fight, and the wife of one of them gets involved to help her husband against his attacker, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals, 25:12 then you must cut off her hand– do not pity her. 25:13 You must not have in your bag different stone weights, a heavy and a light one. 25:14 You must not have in your house different measuring containers, a large and a small one. 25:15 You must have an accurate and correct stone weight and an accurate and correct measuring container, so that your life may be extended in the land the Lord your God is about to give you. 25:16 For anyone who acts dishonestly in these ways is abhorrent to the Lord your God.

Treatment of the Amalekites

25:17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you on your way from Egypt, 25:18 how they met you along the way and cut off all your stragglers in the rear of the march when you were exhausted and tired; they were unafraid of God. 25:19 So when the Lord your God gives you relief from all the enemies who surround you in the land he is giving you as an inheritance, you must wipe out the memory of the Amalekites from under heaven– do not forget!

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Deu 25:4

Which they did in those parts, either immediately by their hoofs on by drawing carts or other instruments over the corn. Hereby God taught them humanity, even to their beasts that served them, and much more to their servants or other men who laboured for them, especially to their ministers, 1Co 9:9.

Wesley: Deu 25:5

In the same town, or at least country. For if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, on were carried thither into captivity, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her.

Wesley: Deu 25:5

Any of them, for the words are general, and the reason of the law was to keep up the distinction of tribes and families, that so the Messiah might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed; and also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first-born having only a double portion.

Wesley: Deu 25:5

To one of another family.

Wesley: Deu 25:6

That a family be not lost. So this was a provision that the number of their families might not be diminished.

Wesley: Deu 25:9

As a sign of his resignation of all his right to the woman, and to her husband's inheritance: for as the shoe was a sign of one's power and right, Psa 60:8, Psa 108:9, so the parting with the shoe was a token of the alienation of such right; and as a note of infamy, to signify that by this disingenuous action he was unworthy to be amongst free - men, and fit to be reduced to the condition of the meanest servants, who used to go barefoot, Isa 20:2, Isa 20:4.

Wesley: Deu 25:10

That is, his person, and his posterity also. So it was a lasting blot.

Wesley: Deu 25:13

The great to buy with, the small for selling.

Wesley: Deu 25:17

Which circumstance greatly aggravates their sin, that they should do thus to a people, who had been long exercised with sore afflictions, to whom pity was due by the laws of nature and humanity, and for whose rescue God had in so glorious a manner appeared, which they could not be ignorant of. So this was barbarousness to Israel, and setting the great Jehovah at defiance.

JFB: Deu 25:4

In Judea, as in modern Syria and Egypt, the larger grains were beaten out by the feet of oxen, which, yoked together, day after day trod round the wide open spaces which form the threshing-floors. The animals were allowed freely to pick up a mouthful, when they chose to do so: a wise as well as humane regulation, introduced by the law of Moses (compare 1Co 9:9; 1Ti 5:17-18).

JFB: Deu 25:5-10

This usage existed before the age of Moses (Gen 38:8). But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory (Mat 22:25) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow (Rth 4:4), by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother's name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes. If the younger brother declined to comply with the law, the widow brought her claim before the authorities of the place at a public assembly (the gate of the city); and he having declared his refusal, she was ordered to loose the thong of his shoe--a sign of degradation--following up that act by spitting on the ground-- the strongest expression of ignominy and contempt among Eastern people. The shoe was kept by the magistrate as an evidence of the transaction, and the parties separated.

JFB: Deu 25:13-16

Weights were anciently made of stone and are frequently used still by Eastern shopkeepers and traders, who take them out of the bag and put them in the balance. The man who is not cheated by the trader and his bag of divers weights must be blessed with more acuteness than most of his fellows [ROBERTS]. (Compare Pro 16:11; Pro 20:10).

JFB: Deu 25:17-19

This cold-blooded and dastardly atrocity is not narrated in the previous history (Exo 17:14). It was an unprovoked outrage on the laws of nature and humanity, as well as a daring defiance of that God who had so signally shown His favor towards Israel (see on 1 Samuel 15; 27. 8; 30).

Clarke: Deu 25:4

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, etc. - In Judea, as well as in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, they make use of beeves to tread out the corn; and Dr. Shaw tells us that the people of Barbary continue to tread out their corn after the custom of the East. Instead of beeves they frequently made use of mules and horses, by tying by the neck three or four in like manner together, and whipping them afterwards round about the nedders, as they call the treading floors, (the Libycae areae Hor ), where the sheaves lie open and expanded, in the same manner as they are placed and prepared with us for threshing. This indeed is a much quicker way than ours, though less cleanly, for as it is performed in the open air, (Hos 13:3), upon any round level plot of ground, daubed over with cow’ s dung to prevent as much as possible the earth, sand, or gravel from rising; a great quantity of them all, notwithstanding this precaution, must unavoidably be taken up with the grain, at the same time that the straw, which is their chief and only fodder, is hereby shattered to pieces; a circumstance very pertinently alluded to in 2Ki 13:7, where the king of Syria is said to have made the Israelites like the dust by threshing - Travels, p. 138. While the oxen were at work some muzzled their mouths to hinder them from eating the corn, which Moses here forbids, instructing the people by this symbolical precept to be kind to their servants and laborers, but especially to those who ministered to them in holy things; so St. Paul applies it 1Co 9:9, etc.; 1Ti 5:18. Le Clerc considers the injunction as wholly symbolical; and perhaps in this view it was intended to confirm the laws enjoined in the fourteenth and fifteenth verses of the former chapter. See Dodd and Shaw

In Bengal, where the same mode of treading cut the corn is used, some muzzle the ox, and others do not, according to the disposition of the farmer - Ward.

Clarke: Deu 25:9

And loose his shoe - It is difficult to find the reason of these ceremonies of degradation. Perhaps the shoe was the emblem of power; and by stripping it off, deprivation of that power and authority was represented. Spitting in the face was a mark of the utmost ignominy; but the Jews, who are legitimate judges in this case, say that the spitting was not in his face, but before his face on the ground. And this is the way in which the Asiatics express their detestation of a person to the present day, as Niebuhr and other intelligent travelers assure us. It has been remarked that the prefix ב beth is seldom applied to פני peney ; but when it is it signifies as well before as in the face. See Jos 21:44; Jos 23:9; Est 9:2; and Eze 42:12; which texts are supposed to be proofs in point. The act of spitting, whether in or before the face, marked the strong contempt the woman felt for the man who had slighted her. And it appears that the man was ever after disgraced in Israel; for so much is certainly implied in the saying, Deu 25:10 : And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Clarke: Deu 25:13

Divers weights - אבן ואבן eben vaaben , a stone and a stone, because the weights were anciently made of stone, and some had two sets of stones, a light and a heavy. With the latter they bought their wares, by the former they sold them. In our own country this was once a common case; smooth, round, or oval stones were generally chosen by the simple country people for selling their wares, especially such as were sold in pounds and half pounds. And hence the term a stone weight, which is still in use, though lead or iron be the matter that is used as a counterpoise: but the name itself shows us that a stone of a certain weight was the material formerly used as a weight. See the notes on Lev 19:35, Lev 19:36.

Clarke: Deu 25:14

Divers measures - Literally, an ephah and an ephah; one large, to buy thy neighbor’ s wares, another small, to sell thy own by. So there were knaves in all ages, and among all nations. See the notes on Exo 16:16, and Lev 19:35 (note).

Clarke: Deu 25:18

Smote the hindmost of thee - See the note on Exo 17:8. It is supposed that this command had its final accomplishment in the death of Haman and his ten sons, Esther iii., vii., ix., as from this time the memory and name of Amalek was blotted out from under heaven, for through every period of their history it might be truly said, They feared not God.

Calvin: Deu 25:4

4.Thou shalt not muzzle the ox. This passage, indeed, properly belongs to the Supplements of the Commandment, but, since it is a confirmation of the foregoing decree, it seemed fit to connect them; especially because its faithful expositor, Paul, declares, that God had no other design in delivering it than that the laborer should not be defrauded of his just hire, (1Co 9:10;) for, when he is speaking of the maintenance to be afforded to the ministers of the Gospel, he adduces it. in proof of his case. And, lest any should object that there is a difference between oxen and men, he adds, that God does not care for oxen, but that it was said for the sake of those that labor. Meanwhile, we must bear in mind, that men are so instructed in equity, that they are bound to exercise it even towards the brute animals; for well does Solomon magnify the injustice, whereby our neighbor is injured, by the comparison; “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.” (Pro 12:10.) The sum is, that we should freely and voluntarily pay what is right, and that every one should be strict with himself as to the performance of his duty; for, if we are bound to supply subsistence to brute animals, much less must we wait for men to be importunate with us, in order that they may obtain their due.

Calvin: Deu 25:5

5.If brethren dwell together, and one of them die. This law has some similarity with that which permits a betrothed person to return to the wife, whom he has not yet taken; since the object of both is to preserve to every man what he possesses, so that he may not be obliged to leave it to strangers, but that he may have heirs begotten of his own body: for, when a son succeeds to the father, whom he represents, there seems to be hardly any change made. Hence, too, it is manifest how greatly pleasing to God it is that no one should be deprived of his property, since He makes a provision even for the dying, that what they could not resign to others without regret and annoyance, should be preserved to their offspring. Unless, therefore, his kinsman should obviate the dead man’s childlessness, this inhumanity is accounted a kind of theft. For, since to be childless was a curse of God, it was a consolation in this condition to hope for a borrowed offspring, that the name might not be altogether extinct.

Since we now understand the intention of the law, we must also observe that the word brethren does not mean actual brothers, but cousins, and other kinsmen, whose marriage with the widows of their relative would not have been incestuous; otherwise God would contradict Himself. But these two things are quite compatible, that no one should uncover the nakedness of his brother, and yet that a widow should not marry out of her husband’s family, until she had raised up seed to him from some relation. In fact, Boaz did not marry Ruth because he was the brother of her deceased husband, but only his near kinsman. If any should object that it is not probable that other kinsmen should dwell together, I reply that this passage is improperly supposed to refer to actual living together, as if they dwelt in the same house, but that the precept is merely addressed to relations, whose near residence rendered it convenient to take the widows to their own homes; for, if any lived far away, liberty was accorded to both to seek the fulfillment of the provision elsewhere. Surely it is not probable that God would have authorized an incestuous marriage, which He had before expressed His abomination of. Nor can it be doubted, as I have above stated, but that the like necessity was imposed upon the woman of offering herself to the kinsman of her former husband; and although there was harshness in this, still she seemed to owe this much to his memory, that she should willingly raise up seed to the deceased; yet, if any one think differently, I will not contend the point with him. If, however, she were not obliged to do so, it was absurd that she should voluntarily obtrude herself: nor was there any other reason why she should bring to trial the kinsman, from whom she had suffered a repulse, except that she might acquire the liberty of marrying into another family. Yet it is not probable that he was to be condemned to an ignominious punishment, without being admitted to make his defense, because sometimes just reasons for refusal might be alleged. This disgrace, therefore, was only a penalty for inhumanity or avarice. By giving up his shoe, he renounced his right of relationship, and gave it up to another: for, by behaving so unkindly towards the dead, he became unworthy of reaping any of the advantages of his relationship.

Calvin: Deu 25:11

This Law is apparently harsh, but its severity skews how very pleasing to God is modesty, whilst, on the other hand, He abominates indecency; for, if in the heat of a quarrel, when the agitation of the mind is an excuse for excesses, it was a crime thus heavily punished, for a woman to take hold of the private parts of a man who was not her husband, much less would God have her lasciviousness pardoned, if a woman were impelled by lust to do anything of the sort. Neither can we doubt but that the judges, in punishing obscenity, were bound to argue from the less to the greater. A threat is also added, lest the severity of the punishment should influence their minds to be tender and remiss ill inflicting it. It was indeed inexcusable effrontery, willfully to assail that part of the body, from the sight and touch of which all chaste women naturally recoil.

Calvin: Deu 25:17

17.Remember what Amalek did unto thee We have elsewhere seen how the Amalekites were the first who made a hostile attack upon the people, and endeavored to interrupt their journey; and Moses also related the sentence of God against them, the execution of which he now enjoins upon the people. God then swore that there should be perpetual war against them throughout all ages; and, that His threatening might not be frustrated, He appoints His people to take vengeance upon their great cruelty and impiety. For when the Israelites were inflicting no injury nor loss upon them, it was an act of injustice to make war upon peaceful persons proceeding, without doing any wrong, to another land. But humanity was still more grossly violated by them, inasmuch as they did not spare their own kindred, and thus cast away the feelings of nature. It is plain from Gen 36:12, that the Amalekites were the descendants of Esau; and hence it follows that they were both sprung from the same ancestor, Isaac. It is true that this command seems but little in accordance with religion, that the people should retaliate an injury done to them. I reply, that they are not stimulated to vindictive feelings in these words, but that they are commanded to punish the sins of Amalek with the same severity as those of the other nations. God appears, indeed, to influence them by private motives when He recounts the cruelty shewn by the Amalekites; but we must judge of the intention of the Legislator with reference to His nature, for we know that no angry or hateful passions can be approved by God; and hence it is easy to conclude that the command was such as the people might obey with well-regulated zeal. The first origin of the crime is specified, viz., because they “feared not God,” for this must not be taken in its ordinary meaning, but as expressing that they rebelled against God as it were deliberately. For the promise given to Abraham and Isaac could not be unknown to them; but, since Esau, the founder of their race, had fallen from the right of primogeniture, it came to pass that they attempted to bring God’s covenant to nought out of wicked and sacrilegious jealousy; and this is the reason why He unites them with the reprobate nations unto the same destruction. The word זנב , zineb, which means to crop the tail, is equivalent to making an attack on the rear, where the baggage and invalids are wont to be placed. ³⁰⁴

Defender: Deu 25:4

Animals should be treated with due consideration and kindness, as God's creatures (Pro 12:10). The Apostle Paul also used this verse to show that every laborer is worthy of his hire, especially those in God's service (1Co 9:9, 1Co 9:10; 1Ti 5:18)."

Defender: Deu 25:5

Deu 25:5-10 describes the rules applicable to so-called "Levirate marriages," the word "levirate" derived from a Latin word meaning "brother-in-law." If the brother either would not or could not fulfill this responsibility, the right and responsibility passed to the nearest kinsman (Rth 2:20; Rth 4:1-10)."

TSK: Deu 25:4

shalt not : In Judea, as well as in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, they made use of beeves to tread out the corn; and the same mode of threshing still obtains in Arabia, Barbary, and other eastern countries, to the present day. The sheaves lie open and expanded on the threshing floors, and the cattle continually move round them, and thus tread out the grain. The natives of Aleppo still religiously observe the ancient humane practice, inculcated by this law, of permitting the oxen to remain unmuzzled when treading out the corn.

muzzle : Pro 12:10; 1Co 9:9, 1Co 9:10; 1Ti 5:17, 1Ti 5:18

treadeth out : Heb. thresheth, Isa 28:27; Hos 10:11

TSK: Deu 25:5

brethren : Mat 22:24; Mar 12:19; Luk 20:28

husband’ s brother : or, next kinsman, Gen 38:8, Gen 38:9; Rth 1:12, Rth 1:13, Rth 3:9, Rth 4:5

TSK: Deu 25:6

the firstborn : Gen 28:8-10

that his name : Deu 9:14, Deu 29:20; Rth 4:10-12; Psa 9:5, Psa 109:13, brother’ s wife, or, next kinsman’ s wife, go up, Deu 21:19; Rth 4:1-7

TSK: Deu 25:8

I like not : Rth 4:6

TSK: Deu 25:9

loose his shoe : Pulling off the shoe seems to express his being degraded to the situation of slaves, who generally went barefoot; and spitting in or rather before (biphney ) his face, was a mark of the utmost ignominy. Rth 4:7, Rth 4:8; Isa 20:2; Mar 1:7; Joh 1:27

spit : Num 12:14; Job 30:10; Isa 50:6; Mat 26:67, Mat 27:30; Mar 10:34

So shall : Gen 38:8-10; Rth 4:10, Rth 4:11; 1Sa 2:30

TSK: Deu 25:11

to deliver her husband : Rom 3:8; 1Ti 2:9

TSK: Deu 25:12

Deu 19:13, Deu 19:21

TSK: Deu 25:13

in thy bag : Lev 19:35, Lev 19:36; Pro 11:1, Pro 16:11, Pro 20:10; Eze 45:10, Eze 45:11; Amo 8:5; Mic 6:11, Mic 6:12

divers weights : Heb. a stone and a stone, Aivenwaaiven ; because weights were anciently made of stone. Hence the expression, a stone weight, which is still in use, though the matter of which it is made be lead or iron, and the name itself shews us that a stone of a certain weight was formerly used.

TSK: Deu 25:14

divers measures : Heb. an ephah and an ephah, Aiphah waaiphah ; for this was the cost common measure among the Israelites, by which all the others were made and adjusted. They are not only forbidden to use divers weights and measures, one large or heavy to buy with, and another small and light to sell with, but they were not even allowed to keep such in the house. It is observable also, that these too common but dishonest actions are branded as ""an abomination to the Lord,""equally with idolatry, and other scandalous crimes. Deu 25:14

TSK: Deu 25:15

that thy days : Deu 4:40, Deu 5:16, Deu 5:33, Deu 6:18, Deu 11:9, Deu 17:20; Exo 20:12; Psa 34:12; Eph 6:3; 1Pe 3:10

TSK: Deu 25:16

all that do : Deu 18:12, Deu 22:5; Pro 11:1, Pro 20:23; Amo 8:5-7; 1Co 6:9-11; 1Th 4:6; Rev 21:27

TSK: Deu 25:17

Exo 17:8-16; Num 24:20, Num 25:17, Num 25:18

TSK: Deu 25:18

feared : Neh 5:9, Neh 5:15; Psa 36:1; Pro 16:6; Rom 3:18

TSK: Deu 25:19

when the : Jos 23:1

thou shalt : Deu 9:14; Exo 17:14, Exo 17:16; Jos 6:3, Jos 7:12, Jos 7:22-25; 1Sa 14:48, 15:1-35, 1Sa 27:8; 1Sa 30:1-7; 1Ch 4:43; Est 3:1, Est 7:10, Est 9:7-10; Psa 83:7-17

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Deu 25:4

Compare the marginal references. In other kinds of labor the oxen were usually muzzled. When driven to and fro over the threshing-floor in order to stamp out the grain from the chaff, they were to be allowed to partake of the fruits of their labors.

Barnes: Deu 25:5-10

The law of levirate marriage. The law on this subject is not unique to the Jews, but is found (see Gen 38:8) in all essential respects the same among various Oriental nations, ancient and modern. The rules in these verses, like those upon divorce, do but incorporate existing immemorial usages, and introduce various wise and politic limitations and mitigations of them. The root of the obligation here imposed upon the brother of the deceased husband lies in the primitive idea of childlessness being a great calamity (compare Gen 16:4; and note), and extinction of name and family one of the greatest that could happen (compare Deu 9:14; Psa 109:12-15). To avert this the ordinary rules as to intermarriage are in the case in question (compare Lev 18:16) set aside. The obligation was onerous (compare Rth 4:6), and might be repugnant; and it is accordingly considerably reduced and restricted by Moses. The duty is recognized as one of affection for the memory of the deceased; it is not one which could be enforced at law. That it continued down to the Christian era is apparent from the question on this point put to Jesus by the Sadducees (see the marginal references).

Deu 25:5

No child - literally, "no son."The existence of a daughter would clearly suffice. The daughter would inherit the name and property of the father; compare Num 27:1-11.

Deu 25:9

Loose his shoe from off his foot - In token of taking from the unwilling brother all right over the wife and property of the deceased. Planting the foot on a thing was an usual symbol of lordship and of taking possession (compare Gen 13:17; Jos 10:24), and loosing the shoe and handing it to another in like manner signified a renunciation and transfer of right and title (compare Rth 4:7-8; Psa 60:8, and Psa 108:9). The widow here is directed herself, as the party slighted and injured, to deprive her brother-law of his shoe, and spit in his face (compare Num 12:14). The action was intended to aggravate the disgrace conceived to attach to the conduct of the man.

Deu 25:10

The house ... - Equivalent to "the house of the barefooted one."To go barefoot was a sign of the most abject condition; compare 2Sa 15:30.

Barnes: Deu 25:12

This is the only mutilation prescribed by the Law of Moses, unless we except the retaliation prescribed as a punishment for the infliction on another of bodily injuries Lev 24:19-20. The act in question was probably not rare in the times and countries for which the Law of Moses was designed. It is of course to be understood that the act was willful, and that the prescribed punishment would be inflicted according to the sentence of the judges.

Barnes: Deu 25:13-19

Honesty in trade, as a duty to our neighbor, is emphatically enforced once more (compare Lev 19:35-36). It is noteworthy that John the Baptist puts the like duties in the forefront of his preaching (compare Luk 3:12 ff); and that "the prophets"(compare Eze 45:10-12; Amo 8:5; Mic 6:10-11) and "the Psalms"Pro 16:11; Pro 20:10, Pro 20:23, not less than "the Law,"especially insist on them.

Deu 25:13

Divers weights - i. e. stones of unequal weights, the lighter to sell with, the heavier to buy with. Stones were used by the Jews instead of brass or lead for their weights, as less liable to lose anything through rust or wear.

Deu 25:17-19

It was not after the spirit or mission of the Law to aim at overcoming inveterate opposition by love and by attempts at conversion (contrast Luk 9:55-56). The law taught God’ s hatred of sin and of rebellion against Him by enjoining the extinction of the obstinate sinner. The Amalekites were a kindred people Gen 36:15-16; and living as they did in the peninsula of Sinai, they could not but have well known the mighty acts God had done for His people in Egypt and the Red Sea; yet they manifested from the first a persistent hostility to Israel (compare Exo 17:8, and note; Num 14:45). They provoked therefore the sentence here pronounced, which was executed at last by Saul (1Sa 15:3 ff).

Poole: Deu 25:4

As the Gentiles used to do, having divers devices to keep them from eating when they trod out the corn, which they did in those parts and times by oxen, Hos 10:11 , either immediately by their hoofs, Isa 28:28 Mic 4:13 , or by drawing carts or other instruments over the corn, Isa 25:10 28:27 41:15 Amo 1:3 . Hereby God taught them humanity and kindness, even to their beasts that served them, Pro 12:10 , and much more to their servants or other men who laboured for them, and especially to their ministers, 1Co 9:9 .

Poole: Deu 25:5

Brethren strictly so called, as is evident from Deu 25:7 Gen 38:8 Rth 1:13 Mat 22:24,25 . Dwell together; either,

1. Strictly, in the same house or family; which is not probable, because the married brother may be presumed to have left his father’ s house, and set up a family of his own. Or,

2. More largely, in the same town or city, or, at least, country. This is added for a relief of their consciences, that if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, which God foresaw would be their case, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry to the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. One of them ; either,

1. The first and eldest of them, as it was practised, Gen 38:6 , &c., and expounded, Mat 22:25 ; one being oft put for the first, as Gen 1:5 2:11 Hag 1:1 Mar 16:2 . And the chief care was about the first-born, who were invested with singular privileges, and were types of Christ. Or,

2. Any of them, for the words are general, and so the practice may seem to have been, Ru 3 ; and the reason of the law may seem to be in a great measure the same, which was to keep up the distinction, as of tribes and families, that so the Messias might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed, so also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first-born having only a double portion.

Have no child Heb. no son . But son is oft put for any child , male or female, both in Scripture and other authors; and therefore the Hebrew no son is rendered no child here, as it is in effect, Mat 22:24 Mar 12:19 Luk 20:28 . And indeed this caution was not necessary when there was a daughter, whose child might be adopted into the name and family of its grandfather.

Unto a stranger i.e. to one of another family, as that word is oft used.

Her husband’ s brother shall go in unto her except he was married himself, as may appear by other scriptures, and by the reason of the thing, and, as some add, from the phrase of dwelling together , to wit, in their father’ s family.

Poole: Deu 25:6

In the name of his brother shall be called and reputed his son. See Rth 4:17 .

That his name be not put out of Israel that a family be not lost. So this was a provision that the number of their families might not be diminished.

Poole: Deu 25:7

To raise up unto his brother a name to revive his brother’ s name and memory.

Poole: Deu 25:8

Speak unto him to convince him of the duty, and persuade him to it.

If he stand to it if he obstinately refuse it.

Poole: Deu 25:9

Loose his shoe partly as a sign of his resignation of all his right to the woman, and to her husband’ s inheritance; for as the shoe was a sign of one’ s power and right, Psa 60:8 108:9 ; so the parting with the shoe was a token of the alienation of such right, and that he would not, and henceforth might not, enter upon his brother’ s land; and partly as a note of infamy, to signify that by this unnatural and disingenuous action he was unworthy to be amongst free-men, and fit to be reduced to the condition of the meanest servants or captives, who used to go barefoot, Isa 20:2,4 .

Spit in his face as a return of his contempt upon himself. See Num 12:14 Isa 1:6 Mat 26:67 27:30 . This was not done, Ru 4 , either because he was not a brother, but a remoter kinsman, and so deserved less shame; or because Ruth did not prosecute him to the utmost, but freely consented to this exchange.

Build up a phrase oft used for the procreation of children, and the increase of a family. See Gen 16:2 Exo 1:21 1Ki 11:38 1Ch 17:25 .

Poole: Deu 25:10

i.e. His person, names being oft put for persons , and his posterity also. So it was a lasting blot.

Poole: Deu 25:12

Partly because of the great mischief she did to him, both to his person and posterity, and partly to deter all women from all immodest and impudent carriages, and to secure that modesty which is indeed the guardian of all the virtues, as immodesty is an inlet to all vices, as the sad experience of this degenerate age shows; and therefore it is not strange that it is so severely restrained and punished.

Thine eye shall not pity her which thou wilt be very apt to do, because of the infirmity of her sex, and the urgency of the occasion, this being done for the necessary preservation of her husband.

Poole: Deu 25:13

The

great either to buy with, or openly to make show of; the

small for their private use in selling.

Poole: Deu 25:17

Which circumstance greatly aggravates their sin, that they should do thus to a people, who had been long exercised with sore afflictions, to whom pity and help was due by the laws of nature and humanity, and for whose rescue God had in so glorious a manner appeared, which they could not be ignorant of. So this was barbarousness to Israel, and setting the great Jehovah at defiance.

Poole: Deu 25:18

Smote the hindmost of thee which God permitted, both for the punishment of Israel’ s sins, and to harden and prepare them for the difficulties of their expedition.

Poole: Deu 25:19

Blot out the remembrance of Amalek which was in great measure done afterward. See 1Sa 15 27:8 30:1,17 1Ch 4:43 Est 9:12,13 .

Haydock: Deu 25:4

Not muzzle, &c. St. Paul understands this of the spiritual labourer in the church of God, who is not to be denied his maintenance, 1 Corinthians ix. 8, 9, 10. (Challoner) ---

Other labourers, and even beasts, must likewise be treated with humanity. It was formerly the custom in Egypt, Judea, Spain, &c., to have a clean spot in the field, round a tree, where, during the heat of the day, they spread the sheaves, and made oxen continually go round, to tread out the corn. Some had the ill nature to muzzle them, or to cover their mouths with dung; (Æliian iv. 25,) whence arose the proverb, "an ox in a heap" of corn, to denote a miser, who amidst plenty will not eat. (Suidas.) ---

Moses condemns this cruelty; as it is not just, says Josephus, to refuse these animals so small a recompence for the assistance which they afford us in procuring corn. (Calmet) ---

Besides this literal sense, God had principally in view the mystical one, which St. Paul unfolds to us. (Menochius) ---

Paine hence takes occasion to ridicule priests, who, he says, "preach up Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up tithes." But this bok enjoins them no more that other books of Scripture, and common reason dictates that the labourer is worthy of his hire. If the artizan, &c., will not work for nothing, why should priests spend their lives and fortunes, for the benefit of the people, without deriving any advantage from them? Who has served in the wars at his own charge at any time? (1 Corinthians ix. 7.) Whether the mode of paying tithes be the most eligible for the support of God's ministers, is a question of smaller importance. It may at least plead a very high antiquity, (Haydock) as it was in force 400 years before the law of Moses. Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedeck, who was both king and priest; and Pisistratus received tithes from the people of Athens, to be expended in the public sacrifices, and for the general good. (Laertius in Solone.; Watson, let. 2.)

Haydock: Deu 25:5

Together, as the sons of Juda did: (Genesis xxxviii. 8,) though custom (Calmet) and analogy extend this to other brothers, at least to those who live in the promised land, and have the inheritance in common, as appears from the history of Ruth, Ruth i. 13, &c. Noemi supposes that all the sons whom she might have had, would have been under the same obligation towards her daughter-in-law. The Rabbins restrain this law as much as they can, asserting that if the deceased left an adopted or natural child, the brother need not marry his widow, nor was any obliged but the next in age, and not married. St. Justin (q. 132,) teaches the reverse. (Calmet) ---

Half-brothers were included, (Menochius) and indeed every relation, in order, who, upon the refusal of the next heir, wished to take possession of the deceased person's land, Ruth iv. (Haydock) ---

The Jews no longer observe this law, as they have not possession of Chanaan. (Cuneus i. 7.) ---

Fagius asserts that it was neglected after the captivity of Babylon, because the inheritances were confounded. (Calmet) ---

This, however, does not seem to have been the opinion of those who have undertaken to reconcile the genealogy of our Saviour, given by Sts. Matthew and Luke, by supposing that St. Joseph was the son of Jacob by birth, and of Heli according to the law. (St. Hilary) Africanus says (Ep. to Aristides) that "Heli dying without issue, Jacob was obliged to marry his widow, by whom he had Joseph, a descendant of Solomon by Jacob, and of Nathan by Heli," as their common mother, Esta, had married successively Mathan and Melchi, (or rather Mathat) who sprung from those two branches of David's family. (Dupin) (Haydock) ---

The Athenians followed a similar regulation with respect to orphan young women, whom the next of kin were bound to marry and to endow. The Tartars assert their right to marry the widows of their brethren. The Egyptians did not consider the marriage as real, nor any relationship contracted, in case the woman had no issue, on which principle there was no impediment ot prevent the brother from marrying the widow of his brother. On other occasions such contracts were declared illegal, Leviticus xviii. 16. (Calmet) ---

This was a positive law, (Worthington; Genesis xxxviii.) which admitted of an exception.

Haydock: Deu 25:6

Name. Josephus ([Antiquities?] iv. 8) takes this literally, as St. Augustine once did, though afterwards he retracted that opinion, (B. ii. 12,) on considering that Booz called his son Obed, and not Mahalon, which was the name of the first husband of Ruth, Ruth iv. 17. (Calmet) ---

Houbigant thinks some omissions have taken place in the very short genealogy of David, mentioned in that chapter, and instead of Obed, he would substitute Jachin, as the first-born of Ruth. He thinks that Solomon alluded to two of his ancestors, when he styled the two pillars before the temple Jachin and Booz. "In strength it shall stand or establish," 3 Kings vii. 21. Hebrew, "the first-born which she beareth shall arise (or succeed) in the name (or by the right and title) of his brother." See Numbers xxiv. 3. (Haydock) ---

Name is sometimes put for succession, (Calmet) or instead of another. (Menochius)

Haydock: Deu 25:9

In his face, or presence, upon the ground, as appears from the Gemarra of Jerusalem, where we read this form: (Haydock) "In our presence, (the three judges are specified) N, widow of N, hath taken off the shoe of N, son of N. She brought him before us, and took off the shoe from his right foot, and spat in our presence, so that we saw her spittle upon the ground; and she said to him, So shall he be treated who will not establish the house of his brother." Before this ceremony took place, the widow was obliged to wait three months, to prove that she was not in a state of pregnancy; for if she were, the brother could not marry her. He was never obliged to do it, but if he refused he was deemed infamous. The taking off the shoe was intended to humble him, as well as to shew that he relinquished all his claim to the inheritance. Josephus ([Antiquities?] v. 11) says, that Ruth gave the relation, who would not marry her, a slap on the face, or rather, as it ought to be printed, "she spat in his face," which was a mark of the greatest ignominy, chap. xii. 14., Isaias l. 6., and Matthew xxvi. 67. (Calmet)

Haydock: Deu 25:10

Unshod. Those who have no consideration for their brethren, or for the commonwealth, deserve to be despised. Much more do they who are appointed pastors of the Church, if they do not zealously endeavour to increase the number of God's servants, whom they must attach to him, and not to themselves. Thus the disciples of St. Paul were known by the general name of Christians. (St. Augustine, contra Faustus xxxii. 10.) (Worthington)

Haydock: Deu 25:12

In her regard: words supplied also by the Septuagint conformably to the context. (Calmet) ---

The indecency and impudence of the woman, left her no excuse; (Haydock) though the Rabbins falsely maintain, that she might transgress this law in case of necessity, and might cut off the hand of her husband's antagonist. (Grotius) (Calmet) ---

She would thus put the man in danger of having no posterity. (Menochius) ---

If even the imminent danger of her husband would not authorize her to act in this manner, when the person was stripped to fight, how severely will God punish all wanton liberties!

Haydock: Deu 25:16

Injustice. Proverbs xx. 10. To have a greater weight for buying and a less one for selling, is the way to grow rich here, or to obtain the mammon of iniquity; though, when such mean practices are detected, the man who cheats often loses more than he had gained; and at any rate, must either make restitution, if possible, or receive the wages of his unjust labour and craft in the world to come. (Haydock)

Haydock: Deu 25:17

Amalec. This order for destroying the Amalecites, in the mystical sense, sheweth how hateful they are to God, and what punishments they are to look for from his justice, who attack and discourage his servants when they are but just come out, as it were, of the Egypt of this wicked world, and being yet weak and faint-hearted, are but beginning their journey to the land of promise.

Haydock: Deu 25:18

God. This circumstance is not mentioned, Exodus xvii. 14.

Gill: Deu 25:4

Thou shall not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. As oxen are used in ploughing, so likewise in treading or beating out the corn; of the manner of which; see Gill on 1Co 9:9; now while it was thus employed, it might not be restrained by any means from eating the corn as it had an opportunity, either by a muzzle put over its mouth, or other ways. The Gentiles had several ways of restraining their cattle from eating, while they thus made use of them, to which this law is opposed. Maimonides ^f has collected several or them together, as prohibited by it; as putting a thorn into its mouth, causing a lion to lie down by it, or causing its calf to lie down without, or spreading a skin on the top of the corn, that so it may not eat. Aelianus ^g relates a very particular way of hindering oxen from eating at such times, used some countries, which was this; that oxen might not eat of the ears of corn, in a floor where they were trod out, they used to besmear their nostrils with cows' dung, which was so disagreeable to the creature, that it would not taste anything though pressed with famine. This law is not to be limited to the ox only, or to this peculiar work assigned it; but, as Jarchi says, respects any sort of cattle, and whatsoever work that has food in it, none of them being to be restrained from eating while at work: and this law was not made for the creatures only, but for men also; and especially for the sake of ministers of the word; who for their strength, labour, and industry, are compared to oxen, and ought to be comfortably supported and maintained on account of their work; for the illustration and confirmation of which this passage is twice produced; see Gill on 1Co 9:9; See Gill on 1Co 9:10; See Gill on 1Ti 5:17; See Gill on 1Ti 5:18.

Gill: Deu 25:5

If brethren dwell together,.... Not only in the same country, province, town, or city, but in the same house; such who had been from their youth brought up together in their father's house, and now one of them being married, as the case put supposes, they that were unmarried might live with him, and especially if the father was dead; and so may except such as were abroad, and in foreign countries, or at such a distance that this law coals not well be observed by them; though the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi, interpret it of their being united in an inheritance, all by virtue of relation having a claim to their father's inheritance; so that it mattered not where they dwelt, it is the relation that is regarded, and their right of inheritance; and the above Targum describes them as brethren on the father's side, and so Jarchi says excepts his brother on the mother's side; for brethren by the mother's side, in case of inheritance, and the marrying of a brother's wife, were not reckoned brethren, as Maimonides ^h observes; who adds, that there is no brotherhood but on the father's side. Some think that when there were no brethren in a strict and proper sense, the near kinsmen, sometimes called brethren, were to do the office here enjoined, and which they conclude from the case of Boaz and Ruth; but Aben Ezra contradicts this, and says that instance is no proof of it, it respecting another affair, not marriage, but redemption; and says that brethren, absolutely and strictly speaking are here meant; which is agreeably to their tradition ⁱ:

and one of them die, and have no child: son, or daughter, son's son, or daughter's son, or daughter's daughter, as Jarchi notes; if there were either of these, children or grandchildren, of either sex, there was no obligation to marry a brother's wife; so, in the case put to Christ, there was no issue, the person was childless, Mat 22:24,

the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; by whom is meant not a Gentile, or a proselyte of the gate, or of righteousness, but any Israelite whatever, that was not of her husband's family; she might not marry out of the family; that is, she was refused by all, the design of the law being to secure inheritances, and continue them in families to which they belonged:

her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife; that is, supposing him to be unmarried, and this is indeed supposed in the first clause of the text, by dwelling with his brother; for had he been married, he would have dwelt with his wife and family apart; besides, if this law obliged a married man to marry his brother's wife, polygamy would be required and established by a law of God, which was never otherwise than permitted. This is to be understood of the eldest brother, as Jarchi, who is in an unmarried state; so it is said in the Misnah ^k,"the command is upon the eldest to marry his brother's wife; if he will not, they go to all the brethren; if they will not, they return to the eldest; and say to him, upon thee is the commandment, either allow the shoe to be plucked off, or marry;''and such a course we find was taken among the Jews in our Lord's time, Mat 22:25,

and perform the duty of an husband's brother to her; cohabit together as man and wife, in order to raise up seed to his brother, and perform all the offices and duties of an husband to a wife; but the marriage solemnity was not to take place when it was agreed to, until three months or ninety days had passed from the death of the brother, that it might be known whether she was with child or no by her husband, and in such a case this law had no force; so runs the Jewish canon ^l"a brother's wife may not pluck off the shoe, nor be married, until three months;''that is, after her husband's death.

Gill: Deu 25:6

And it shall be that the firstborn that she beareth,.... To her husband's brother, now married to her:

shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead; the meaning is, as the Targum of Jonathan,"he shall rise up in the inheritance in the name of his brother;''or, as Jarchi expresses it,"he shall take the inheritance of the deceased in the goods of his father;''that is, he shall have his part and share in the inheritance that the deceased brother would have had if he had lived, which would come to him by his father:

that his name be not put out of Israel; that the family be not lost in Israel, and the inheritance belonging to it pass to another. This law was designed to keep families distinct, and inheritances in them, until the Messiah came, and that it might appear from what family he came; as he did from one in whom, as it is generally thought, this law took place: and it might have still a more special respect to him, as Ainsworth suggests; for Christ in the mystical sense may be signified by the deceased brother; he stands in the relation of a brother to his people, and has all the love, friendship, compassion, and condescension of one; he and they are of one and the same father, of the same family, and of the same nature, and have the same inheritance they being co-heirs with him; nor is he ashamed to own the relation. This brother of theirs is deceased; his death was according to the will of God, what he himself agreed to, and was foretold by the prophets; for which purpose he came into the world, and did die as to the flesh, and that for the sins of his people. Now the Jewish church was his wife, by whom he had no children through the law; that church was espoused to him, he stood in the relation of an husband to her, and she in the relation of a wife to him. Very few children were brought forth by her to him, see, Isa 54:1; and none by the law, by which there is no regeneration, but by the Gospel; it is through that, and not the law, the Spirit and his graces come; or souls are born again to Christ, renewed and sanctified. The apostles that survived Christ, and the ministers of the Gospel, are his brethren, Joh 20:17; and who are instruments in begetting souls to Christ; and these are a seed raised up unto him, and are called not after the name of the apostles and ministers of the word, through whose ministry they are begotten, 1Co 1:12; but after Christ; and have the name of Christians, or anointed ones, from him, and by which means his name is, and will be continued as long as the sun endures, Act 11:26.

Gill: Deu 25:7

And the man like not to take his brother's wife,.... The provision here made by this law, when this was the case, is such as did not take place before it became a law; for then Onan would have taken the advantage of it, and refused marrying his brother's wife, which it is plain was not agreeable to him, Gen 38:9; as many do now on one account or another. Leo of Modena ^l says,"it was anciently accounted the more laudable thing to take her, than to release her; but now the corruption of the times, and the hardness of men's hearts, are such, as that they only look after worldly ends, either of riches, or of the beauty of the woman; so that there are very few that in this case will marry a brother's widow, especially among the Dutch and Italian Jews, but they always release her:"

then let his brother's wife go up to the gate; to the gate of the city, where the judges sit for public affairs; to the gate of the sanhedrim, or court of judicature, as the Targum of Jonathan; and this affair was cognizable by the bench of three judges, and might be dispatched by them; for so it is said ^m,"the plucking off the shoe, and the refusal of marriage, are by three:''i.e. three judges, which was the lowest court of judicature with the Jews:

unto the elders, and say; which according to the above Targum were to be five wise men, of which three were to be judges, and two witnesses; and she was to say in the Hebrew language, in which, according to the Misnah ⁿ, she was to pronounce what follows:

my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother; that is, in a few words, he will not marry her.

Gill: Deu 25:8

Then the elders of his city shall call him,.... Require him to come, before them, and declare his resolution, and the reasons for it; recite this law to him, and explain the nature of it, and exhort him to comply with it, or show reason why he does not, at least to have his final resolution upon it:

and speak unto him; talk with him upon this subject, and give him their best advice; and what that was Maimonides ^o more particularly informs us; if it is good and advisable to marry, they advise him to marry; but if it is better advice to pluck off the shoe, they give it; as when she is young and he is old, or she is old and he young, they advise him to allow the shoe to be plucked off:

and if he stand to it: and say, I like not to take her; if, after all the conversation, debate, and counsel between them, he is resolute, and abides by his first determination, that he will not marry her, then the following method was to be taken.

Gill: Deu 25:9

Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders,.... The time and place being appointed the evening before by three Rabbins, and two witnesses, as Leo of Modena says ^p; of which she was apprized, and ordered to come tasting:

and loose his shoe from off his foot; his right foot, which was thus done;"they bring him a leather shoe, which has a heel, but not sewed with linen (linen thread), and he puts it on the right foot, and binds the latchet on his foot, and stands, he and she, in the court; he fixes his foot on the ground, and she sits and stretches out her hand in the court, and looses the latchet of his shoe from off his foot, and pulls off his shoe, and casts it to the ground ^q:''this he suffered to be done to show that he gave up his right to her; and he was so used by way of reproach, to signify that he deserved not to be reckoned among freemen, but among servants and slaves, that went barefooted, having no shoes on: and in the mystical sense of it, as Ainsworth observes, it spiritually signified, that such as would not beget children unto Christ (or preach his Gospel for that purpose), it should be declared of them that their feet are not shod with the preparation of the Gospel of Christ, Eph 6:15,

and spit in his face; in a way of contempt, as a token of shame and disgrace; but the Jewish writers generally interpret this in a softer manner, as if it was not in his face, but in his presence, upon the floor, and seen by the judges ^r:

and shall answer and say, so shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother's house; that is, in this contemptuous and shameful manner shall he be used.

Gill: Deu 25:10

And his name shall be called in Israel,.... Not his particular and personal name, but his family; for it seems that not only a mark of infamy was set upon him for refusing to marry his brother's widow, but upon his family also:

the house of him that hath his shoe loosed; which, as Leo of Modena says ^s, was repeated by her three times; and at every time the people with a loud voice answer and call him, one that had his shoe loosed; and then the Rabbin tells the man that he is at liberty now to marry whom he pleases; and if he desires a certificate from them of this setting free his kinswoman, they presently give him one; and she also had a writing given to her by the judges, certifying the same, that she was free also to marry another; of which the following is a short form or copy ^t."In such or such a session (or court), such an one, the daughter of such an one, plucked off the shoe of such an one, the son of such an one, before us; she brought him before us, and she loosed the shoe of his right foot, and spit before him spittle, which was seen by us upon the ground; and said, so shall it be done to the man that would not build up his brother's house.''A larger form may be seen in Maimonides ^u, as well as a type and copy of the matrimonial contract. From this law an high priest was free, Lev 21:14; and so a king, according to the Jewish canon ^w.

Gill: Deu 25:11

When men strive together, one with another,.... Quarrel with one another, and come to blows, and strive for mastery, which shall beat, and be the best man:

and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him; perceiving that his antagonist has more skill or strength, or both, for fighting, and is an more than a match for her husband, who is like to be much bruised and hurt; wherefore, to save him out of the hands of the smiter, she goes up to them to part them, or take her husband's side:

and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets; or privy parts; in Hebrew his "shameful" parts ^x, which through shame are hidden, and modesty forbids to express in proper terms; and such is the purity of the Hebrew language, that no obscene words are used in it; for which reason, among others, it is called the holy tongue. This immodest action was done partly out of affection to her husband, to oblige his antagonist to let go his hold of him; and partly out of malice and revenge to him, to spoil him, and make him unfit for generation, and therefore was to be severely punished, as follows.

Gill: Deu 25:12

Then thou shall cut off her hand,.... Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate. Our Lord is thought to refer to this law, Mat 5:30; though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it; so Jarchi; and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, "eye for eye", Exo 21:24; which they commonly understand of paying a price for the both, &c. lost; and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:

thine eye shall not pity her; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.

Gill: Deu 25:13

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights,.... Or, "a stone and a stone" ^y; it being usual, in those times and countries, to have their weights of stone, as it was formerly with us here; we still say, that such a commodity is worth so much per stone, a stone being of such a weight; now these were not to be different:

a great and a small; great weights, to buy with them, and small weights, to sell with them, as the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it.

Gill: Deu 25:14

Thou shall not have in thine house divers, measures,.... Or, "an ephah and an ephah"; which was one sort of measure in use with the Jews, and held above a bushel; and is put for all others, which should be alike, and not

a great and a small; one to buy with, and another to sell by, as before observed; which would be to cheat both seller and buyer in their turns; see Amo 8:5.

Gill: Deu 25:15

But thou shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shall thou have,.... That is, full weights, and full measures; and such as are alike, and everywhere used, according to the standard of the country; See Gill on Lev 19:36,

that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee; long life was always reckoned a blessing, and is frequently promised to, obedience, and particularly long life in the land of Canaan; which was a most delightful and fruitful land, and which a man might wish to live long in; deceitful men, are threatened with not living half their days, and such may they be said to be that use false weights and measures, Psa 55:23.

Gill: Deu 25:16

For all that do such things,.... Keep, different weights and measures, and make use of them to defraud their neighbours in buying and selling:

and all that do unrighteously; what is not just and right between man and man, in any other instance whatever:

are an abomination unto the Lord thy God; both they and their actions; he is a righteous God, and loves righteousness, and hates injustice of every kind.

Gill: Deu 25:17

Remember what Amalek did unto thee,.... The Amalekites, how they came out against them, and fought with them at Rephidim, Exo 17:8,

by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; which was an aggravation of their cruel and inhuman action, that they not only came out against them unprovoked, were the aggressors, and fell upon them as they were travelling on the road, but when they were just come out of Egypt, where they had been in hard bondage, and their spirits broken, and they not used to war; and so took them at all these disadvantages, a people that had not in the least injured them.

Gill: Deu 25:18

How he met thee by the way,.... Not with necessary provisions, food and drink, which would have been but a piece of kindness and humanity to travellers; but met them sword in hand, in order to stop their journey, and make them captives, at least to harass and distress them:

and smote the hindmost of thee; came upon them in a sly cowardly manner, and attacked their rear:

even all that were feeble behind thee: women and children, and such men as were weak, sickly, labouring under some disorder, and so lagged behind, and could not keep up with the rest; on these Amalek first fell, and began his attack here:

when thou wast faint and weary; with travelling, and the more so for want of water, which was their case at Rephidim, when Amalek came out against them; which is another aggravation of their unkind usage of them they were not to forget:

and he feared not God; who was then in the pillar of cloud and fire with Israel, which phenomenon Amalek might see, and yet did not fear; and who had done such wonders for Israel in Egypt, and had brought them from thence, and had drowned Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea, of which doubtless Amalek had heard, and yet feared not the Lord, who had done such great things.

Gill: Deu 25:19

Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about,.... Not only when they had subdued the Canaanites, and got possession of their land, but when they were clear and free from all their neighbouring nations, Moabites, Midianites, Edomites, Ammonites, and Philistines; wherefore it may be observed, that this did not take place, as not immediately after the conquest of Canaan, so neither in the times of the judges, when they were harassed frequently by their neighbours, and not until the times of Saul, the first king of Israel:

in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it; the sense is, when they were in the full possession of the land given them by the Lord, as an inheritance to be enjoyed by them and theirs; and were at an entire rest from all enemies, and so had their hands at liberty to employ against Amalek:

that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven: that is, utterly destroy them, so that there should be none left of them any where, to put in mind that there ever were such a people on earth; men, women, children, cattle of all sorts, were to be destroyed, and nothing left that belonged unto them; that it might not be said this beast was Amalek's, as Jarchi, and to the same purpose Aben Ezra; see the order for this renewed, and the accomplishment of it, at least in part, 1Sa 15:2, &c.

thou shall not forget it; neither the unkindness of Amalek, nor this order to destroy him. The Targum of Jonathan adds,"and even in the days of the King Messiah it shall not be forgotten.''

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Deu 25:4

¹ tn Heb “an.” By implication this is one’s own animal.

NET Notes: Deu 25:5

¹ tn Heb “take her as wife”; NRSV “taking her in marriage.”

² sn This is the so-called “levirate” custom (from the Latin term levir, “brother-in-law”), an ancient provision whereby a man who died without male descendants to carry on his name could have a son by proxy, that is, through a surviving brother who would marry his widow and whose first son would then be attributed to the brother who had died. This is the only reference to this practice in an OT legal text but it is illustrated in the story of Judah and his sons (Gen 38) and possibly in the account of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 2:8; 3:12; 4:6).

NET Notes: Deu 25:6

¹ tn Heb “and it will be that.”

² tn Heb “the firstborn.” This refers to the oldest male child.

NET Notes: Deu 25:7

¹ tn Heb “want to take his sister-in-law, then his sister in law.” In the second instance the pronoun (“she”) has been used in the translation to avoid redundancy.

NET Notes: Deu 25:9

¹ sn The removal of the sandal was likely symbolic of the relinquishment by the man of any claim to his dead brother’s estate since the sandal was associated with the soil or land (cf. Ruth 4:7-8). Spitting in the face was a sign of utmost disgust or disdain, an emotion the rejected widow would feel toward her uncooperative brother-in-law (cf. Num 12:14; Lev 15:8). See W. Bailey, NIDOTTE 2:544.

² tn Heb “build the house of his brother”; TEV “refuses to give his brother a descendant”; NLT “refuses to raise up a son for his brother.”

NET Notes: Deu 25:10

¹ tn Heb “called,” i.e., “known as.”

² tn Heb “house.”

³ tn Cf. NIV, NCV “The Family of the Unsandaled.”

NET Notes: Deu 25:11

¹ tn Heb “a man and his brother.”

² tn Heb “shameful parts.” Besides the inherent indelicacy of what she has done, the woman has also threatened the progenitive capacity of the injured man. The level of specificity given this term in modern translations varies: “private parts” (NAB, NIV, CEV); “genitals” (NASB, NRSV, TEV); “sex organs” (NCV); “testicles” (NLT).

NET Notes: Deu 25:13

¹ tn Heb “a stone and a stone.” The repetition of the singular noun here expresses diversity, as the following phrase indicates. See IBHS 116 §7.2.3c.

² tn Heb “a large and a small,” but since the issue is the weight, “a heavy and a light one” conveys the idea better in English.

NET Notes: Deu 25:14

¹ tn Heb “an ephah and an ephah.” An ephah refers to a unit of dry measure roughly equivalent to five U.S. gallons (just under 20 liters). On the repetition of the term to indicate diversity, see IBHS 116 §7.2.3c.

NET Notes: Deu 25:15

¹ tn Or “just”; Heb “righteous.”

NET Notes: Deu 25:16

¹ tn The Hebrew term translated here “abhorrent” (תּוֹעֵבָה, to’evah) speaks of attitudes and/or behaviors so vile as to be reprehensible to a holy God. See note on the word “abhorrent” in Deut 7:25.

NET Notes: Deu 25:17

¹ tn Heb “what Amalek” (so NAB, NRSV). Here the individual ancestor, the namesake of the tribe, is cited as representative of the entire tribe at the time Israel was entering Canaan. Consistent with this, singular pronouns are used in v. 18 and the singular name appears again in v. 19. Since readers unfamiliar with the tribe of Amalekites might think this refers to an individual, the term “Amalekites” and the corresponding plural pronouns have been used throughout these verses (cf. NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

NET Notes: Deu 25:18

¹ sn See Exod 17:8-16.

NET Notes: Deu 25:19

¹ tn Heb “ the Lord your God.” The pronoun has been used in the translation for stylistic reasons to avoid redundancy.

² tn The Hebrew text includes “to possess it.”

³ tn Or “from beneath the sky.” The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) may be translated “heaven(s)” or “sky” depending on the context.

⁴ sn This command is fulfilled in 1 Sam 15:1-33.

Geneva Bible: Deu 25:5

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her ^{( d )} husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

^{( d )} Because the Hebrew word does not signify the natural brother, and the word that signifies a brother, is taken also for a kinsman: it seems that it does not mean that the natural brother should marry his brothers wife, but some other kindred that was in the degree that might marry.

Geneva Bible: Deu 25:11

^{( e )} When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

^{( e )} This law imputes that godly shamefacedness is preferred: for it is a horrible thing to see a woman past shame.

Geneva Bible: Deu 25:19

Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance to possess it, [that] thou shalt blot out the ^{( f )} remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget [it].

^{( f )} This was partly accomplished by Saul, about 450 years later.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Deu 25:1-19

1 Stripes must not exceed forty.

4 The ox is not to be muzzled.

5 Of raising seed unto a brother.

11 Of the immodest woman.

13 Of unjust weights and measures.

17 The memory of Amalek is to be blotted out.

MHCC: Deu 25:4

This is a charge to husbandmen. It teaches us to make much of the animals that serve us. But we must learn, not only to be just, but kind to all who are employed for the good of our better part, our souls, 1Co 9:9.

MHCC: Deu 25:5-12

The custom here regulated seems to have been in the Jewish law in order to keep inheritances distinct; now it is unlawful.

MHCC: Deu 25:13-16

Dishonest gain always brings a curse on men's property, families, and souls. Happy those who judge themselves, repent of and forsake their sins, and put away evil things, that they may not be condemned of the Lord.

MHCC: Deu 25:17-19

Let every persecutor and injurer of God's people take warning from the case of the Amalekites. The longer it is before judgement comes, the more dreadful will it be at last. Amalek may remind us of the foes of our souls. May we be enabled to slay all our lusts, all the corruptions both within and without, all the powers of darkness and of the world, which oppose our way to the blessed Saviour.

Matthew Henry: Deu 25:1-4

Here is, I. A direction to the judges in scourging malefactors, Deu 25:1-3. 1. It is here supposed that, if a man be charged with a crime, the accuser and the accused ( Actor and Reus ) should be brought face to face before the judges, that the controversy may be determined. 2. If a man were accused of a crime, and the proof fell short, so that the charge could not be made out against him by the evidence, then he was to be acquitted: " Thou shalt justify the righteous, "that is, "him that appears to the court to be so."If the accusation be proved, then the conviction of the accused is a justification of the accuser, as righteous in the prosecution. 3. If the accused were found guilty, judgment must be given against him: "Thou shalt condemn the wicked; "for to justify the wicked is as much an abomination to the Lord as it is to condemn the righteous, Pro 17:15. 4. If the crime were not made capital by the law, then the criminal must be beaten. A great many precepts we have met with which have not any particular penalty annexed to them, the violation of most of which, according to the constant practice of the Jews, was punished by scourging, from which no person's rank or quality did exempt him if he were a delinquent, but with this proviso, that he should never be upbraided with it, nor should it be looked upon as leaving any mark of infamy or disgrace upon him. The directions here given for the scourging of criminals are, (1.) That it be done solemnly; not tumultuously through the streets, but in open court before the judge's face, and with so much deliberation as that the stripes might be numbered. The Jews say that while execution was in doing the chief justice of the court read with a loud voice Deu 28:58, Deu 28:59, and Deu 29:9, and concluded with those words (Psa 78:38), But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity. Thus it was made a sort of religious act, and so much the more likely to reform the offender himself and to be a warning to others. (2.) That it be done in proportion to the crime, according to his fault, that some crimes might appear, as they are, more heinous than others, the criminal being beaten with many stripes, to which perhaps there is an allusion, Luk 12:47, Luk 12:48. (3.) That how great soever the crime were the number of stripes should never exceed forty, Deu 25:3. Forty save one was the common usage, as appears, 2Co 11:24. It seems, they always gave Paul as many stripes as ever they gave to any malefactor whatsoever. They abated one for fear of having miscounted (though one of the judges was appointed to number the stripes), or because they would never go to the utmost rigour, or because the execution was usually done with a whip of three lashes, so that thirteen stripes (each one being counted for three) made up thirty-nine, but one more by that reckoning would have been forty-two. The reason given for this is, lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee. He must still be looked upon as a brother (2Th 3:15), and his reputation as such was preserved by this merciful limitation of his punishment. It saves him from seeming vile to his brethren, when God himself by his law takes this care of him. Men must not be treated as dogs; nor must those seem vile in our sight to whom, for aught we know, God may yet give grace to make them precious in his sight.

II. A charge to husbandmen not to hinder their cattle from eating when they were working, if meat were within their reach, Deu 25:4. This instance of the beast that trod out the corn (to which there is an allusion in that of the prophet, Hos 10:11) is put for all similar instances. That which makes this law very remarkable above its fellows (and which countenances the like application of other such laws) is that it is twice quoted in the New Testament to show that it is the duty of the people to give their ministers a comfortable maintenance, 1Co 9:9, 1Co 9:10, and 1Ti 5:17, 1Ti 5:18. It teaches us in the letter of it to make much of the brute-creatures that serve us, and to allow them not only the necessary supports for their life, but the advantages of their labour; and thus we must learn not only to be just, but kind, to all that are employed for our good, not only to maintain but to encourage them, especially those that labour among us in the word and doctrine, and so are employed for the good of our better part.

Matthew Henry: Deu 25:5-12

Here is, I. The law settled concerning the marrying of the brother's widow. It appears from the story of Judah's family that this had been an ancient usage (Gen 38:8), for the keeping up of distinct families. The case put is a case that often happens, of a man's dying without issue, it may be in the prime of his time, soon after his marriage, and while his brethren were yet so young as to be unmarried. Now in this case, 1. The widow was not to marry again into any other family, unless all the relations of her husband did refuse her, that the estate she was endowed with might not be alienated. 2. The husband's brother, or next of kin, must marry her, partly out of respect to her, who, having forgotten her own people and her father's house, should have all possible kindness shown her by the family into which she was married; and partly out of respect to the deceased husband, that though he was dead and gone he might not be forgotten, nor lost out of the genealogies of his tribe; for the first-born child, which the brother or next kinsman should have by the widow, should be denominated from him that was dead, and entered in the genealogy as his child, Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. Under that dispensation we have reason to think men had not so clear and certain a prospect of living themselves on the other side death as we have now, to whom life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel; and therefore they could not but be the more desirous to live in their posterity, which innocent desire was in some measure gratified by this law, an expedient being found out that, though a man had no child by his wife, yet his name should not be put out of Israel, that is, out of the pedigree, or, which is equivalent, remain there under the brand of childlessness. The Sadducees put a case to our Saviour upon this law, with a design to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection by it (Mat 22:24, etc.), perhaps insinuating that there was no need of maintaining the immortality of the soul and a future state, since the law had so well provided for the perpetuating of men's names and families in the world. But, 3. If the brother, or next of kin, declined to do this good office to the memory of him that was gone, what must be done in that case? Why, (1.) He shall not be compelled to do it, Deu 25:7. If he like her not, he is at liberty to refuse her, which, some think, was not permitted in this case before this law of Moses. Affection is all in all to the comfort of the conjugal relation; this is a thing which cannot be forced, and therefore the relation should not be forced without it. (2.) Yet he shall be publicly disgraced for not doing it. The widow, as the person most concerned for the name and honour of the deceased, was to complain to the elders of his refusal; if he persist in it, she must pluck off his shoe, and spit in his face, in open court (or, as the Jewish doctors moderate it, spit before his face), thus to fasten a mark of infamy upon him, which was to remain with his family after him, Deu 25:8-10. Note, Those justly suffer in their own reputation who do not do what they ought to preserve the name and honour of others. He that would not build up his brother's house deserved to have this blemish put upon his own, that it should be called the house of him that had his shoe loosed, in token that he deserved to go barefoot. In the case of Ruth we find this law executed (Rth 4:7), but because, upon the refusal of the next kinsman, there was another ready to perform the duty of a husband's brother, it was that other that plucked off the shoe, and not the widow - Boaz, and not Ruth.

II. A law for the punishing of an immodest woman, Deu 25:11, Deu 25:12. The woman that by the foregoing law was to complain against her husband's brother for not marrying her, and to spit in his face before the elders, needed a good measure of assurance; but, lest the confidence which that law supported should grow to an excess unbecoming the sex, here is a very severe but just law to punish impudence and immodesty. 1. The instance of it is confessedly scandalous to the highest degree. A woman could not do it unless she were perfectly lost to all virtue and honour. 2. The occasion is such as might in part excuse it; it was to help her husband out of the hands of one that was too hard for him. Now if the doing of it in a passion, and with such a good intention, was to be so severely punished, much more when it was done wantonly and in lust. 3. The punishment was that her hand should be cut off; and the magistrates must not pretend to be more merciful than God: Thy eye shall not pity her. Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes.

Matthew Henry: Deu 25:13-19

Here is, I. A law against deceitful weights and measures: they must not only not use them, but they must not have them, not have them in the bag, not have them in the house (Deu 25:13, Deu 25:14); for, if they had them, they would be strongly tempted to use them. They must not have a great weight and measure to buy by and a small one to sell by, for that was to cheat both ways, when either was bad enough; as we read of those that made the ephah small, in which they measured the corn they sold, and the shekel great, by which they weighed the money they received for it, Amo 8:5. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, v. 15. That which is the rule of justice must itself be just; if that be otherwise, it is a constant cheat. This had been taken care of before, Lev 19:35, Lev 19:36. This law is enforced with two very good reasons: - 1. That justice and equity will bring down upon us the blessing of God. The way to have our days lengthened, and to prosper, is to be just and fair in all our dealings Honesty is the best policy. 2. That fraud and injustice will expose us to the curse of God, Deu 25:16. Not only unrighteousness itself, but all that do unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord. And miserable is that man who is abhorred by his Maker. How hateful, particularly, all the arts of deceit are to God, Solomon several times observes, Pro 11:1; Pro 20:10, Pro 20:23; and the apostle tells us that the Lord is the avenger of all such as overreach and defraud in any matter, 1Th 4:6.

II. A law for the rooting out of Amalek. Here is a just weight and a just measure, that, as Amalek had measured to Israel, so it should be measure to Amalek again.

1. The mischief Amalek did to Israel must be here remembered, Deu 25:17, Deu 25:18. When it was first done it was ordered to be recorded (Exo 17:14-16), and here the remembrance of it is ordered to be preserved, not in personal revenge (for that generation which suffered by the Amalekites was gone, so that those who now lived, and their posterity, could not have any personal resentment of the injury), but in a zeal for the glory of God (which was insulted by the Amalekites), that throne of the Lord against which the hand of Amalek was stretched out. The carriage of the Amalekites towards Israel is here represented, (1.) As very base and disingenuous. They had no occasion at all to quarrel with Israel, nor did they give them any notice, by a manifesto or declaration of war; but took them at an advantage, when they had just come out of the house of bondage, and, for aught that appeared to them, were only going to sacrifice to God in the wilderness. (2.) As very barbarous and cruel; for they smote those that were more feeble, whom they should have succoured. The greatest cowards are commonly the most cruel; while those that have the courage of a man will have the compassion of a man. (3.) As very impious and profane: they feared not God. If they had had any reverence for the majesty of the God of Israel, which they saw a token of in the cloud, or any dread of his wrath, which they lately heard of the power of over Pharaoh, they durst not have made this assault upon Israel. Well, here was the ground of the quarrel: and it shows how God takes what is done against his people as done against himself, and that he will particularly reckon with those that discourage and hinder young beginners in religion, that (as Satan's agents) set upon the weak and feeble, either to divert them or to disquiet them, and offend his little ones.

2. This mischief must in due time be revenged, Deu 25:19. When their wars were finished, by which they were to settle their kingdom and enlarge their coast, then they must make war upon Amalek (Deu 25:19), not merely to chase them, but to consume them, to blot out the remembrance of Amalek. It was an instance of God's patience that he deferred the vengeance so long, which should have led the Amalekites to repentance; yet an instance of fearful retribution that the posterity of Amalek, so long after, were destroyed for the mischief done by their ancestors to the Israel of God, that all the world might see, and say, that he who toucheth them toucheth the apple of his eye. It was nearly 400 years after this that Saul was ordered to put this sentence in execution (1 Sa. 15), and was rejected of God because he did not do it effectually, but spared some of that devoted nation, in contempt, not only of the particular orders he received from Samuel, but of this general command here given by Moses, which he could not be ignorant of. David afterwards made some destruction of them; and the Simeonites, in Hezekiah's time, smote the rest that remained (1Ch 4:43); for when God judges he will overcome.

Keil-Delitzsch: Deu 25:4

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 1Co 9:9 and 1Ti 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).

Keil-Delitzsch: Deu 25:5-10

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; {
>, and Deu 28:5, Deu 28:17) is a basket of wicker-work, and not, as Knobel maintains, the Deuteronomist's word for צנצנת rof (Exo 16:33. " The priest "is not the high priest, but the priest who had to attend to the altar-service and receive the sacrificial gifts. - The words, "I have to-day made known to the Lord thy God,"refer to the practical confession which was made by the presentation of the first-fruits. The fruit was the tangible proof that they were in possession of the land, and the presentation of the first of this fruit the practical confession that they were indebted to the Lord for the land. This confession the offerer was also to embody in a prayer of thanksgiving, after the basket had been received by the priest, in which he confessed that he and his people owed their existence and welfare to the grace of God, manifested in the miraculous redemption of Israel out of the oppression of Egypt and their guidance into Canaan.

Deu 26:5-9

אבי אבד ארמּי , " a lost (perishing) Aramaean was my father "(not the Aramaean, Laban , wanted to destroy my father, Jacob , as the Chald ., Arab ., Luther , and others render it). אבד signifies not only going astray, wandering, but perishing, in danger of perishing, as in Job 29:13; Pro 31:6, etc. Jacob is referred to, for it was he who went down to Egypt in few men. He is mentioned as the tribe-father of the nation, because the nation was directly descended from his sons, and also derived its name of Israel from him. Jacob is called in Aramaean, not only because of his long sojourn in Aramaea (Gen 29-31), but also because he got his wives and children there (cf. Hos 12:13); and the relatives of the patriarchs had accompanied Abraham from Chaldaea to Mesopotamia (Aram; see Gen 11:30). מעט בּמתי , consisting of few men ( בּ , the so-called beth essent ., as in Deu 10:22; Exo 6:3, etc.; vid., Ewald , §299, q .). Compare Gen 34:30, where Jacob himself describes his family as "few in number."On the number in the family that migrated into Egypt, reckoned at seventy souls, see the explanation at Gen 46:27. On the multiplication in Egypt into a great and strong people, see Exo 1:7, Exo 1:9; and on the oppression endured there, Exo 1:11-22, and Exo 2:23. - The guidance out of Egypt amidst great signs (Deu 26:8), as in Deu 4:34.

Deu 26:10

" So shalt thou set it down (the basket with the first-fruits) before Jehovah ."These words are not to be understood, as Clericus , Knobel , and others suppose, in direct opposition to Deu 26:4 and Deu 26:5, as implying that the offerer had held the basket in his hand during the prayer, but simply as a remark which closes the instructions.

Deu 26:11

Rejoicing in all the good, etc., points to the joy connected with the sacrificial meal, which followed the act of worship (as in Deu 12:12). The presentation of the first-fruits took place, no doubt, on their pilgrimages to the sanctuary at the three yearly festivals (ch. 16); but it is quite without ground that Riehm restricts these words to the sacrificial meals to be prepared from the tithes, as if they had been the only sacrificial meals (see at Deu 18:3).

Keil-Delitzsch: Deu 25:11-12

"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.

Keil-Delitzsch: Deu 25:13-16

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

Keil-Delitzsch: Deu 25:17-19

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. Exo 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. Jos 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 Deu 25:17.

Constable: Deu 5:1--26:19

IV. MOSES' SECOND MAJOR ADDRESS: AN EXPOSITION OF THE LAW chs. 5--26

". . . Deuteronomy contains the most comprehensive body of laws in the Pentateuch. It is clearly intended to be consulted for guidance on many aspects of daily life, in sharp contrast with the laws of Leviticus, which are very restricted in scope and mainly concern the functions of the priesthood."⁶⁸

"Two of the major elements [in ancient Near Eastern covenant texts] . . . are lists of stipulations, the first of a general, principal nature and the second of a more specific and applicational kind. That is, the first spelled out in broad strokes the kinds of actions and reactions the Great King expected of his vassal, and the other offered examples of how these general expectations could and should be worked out in everyday life within the relationship.

"While a general correspondence exists between Deuteronomy and the secular treaty texts, especially in form, there are significant differences as well. Among these are the narrative sections and the extensive parenesis [exhortation], both of which are lacking in the extrabiblical models. It is important to note here, moreover, that Deuteronomy, in addition to being a covenant text, is also a law code, or, more precisely, contains a law code. The general stipulation section (5:1-11:32) and the specific stipulation section (12:1-26:15) function as such a law code and thus serve both in this capacity and in that of covenant stipulation. To put it more succinctly, the stipulations of the Deuteronomic covenant constitute the law code for the nation Israel that was about to enter the new conditions and expectations of life in the land of promise. This is why the following principles resemble both legal statutes and covenant stipulations at one and the same time."⁶⁹

Constable: Deu 12:1--25:19

B. An exposition of selected covenant laws 12-25

Moses' homiletical exposition of the law of Israel that follows explains reasons for the covenant laws that arose from the Ten Commandments. This address concludes with directions for celebrating and confirming the covenant (26:1-15). The section contains a mixture of laws previously revealed to the Israelites and other laws not previously revealed in the code given at Sinai (Exod. 20:1-23:19). This is instruction preached rather than codified as comprehensive legislation.

"The specific laws in this section were given to help the people subordinate every area of their lives to the LORD, and to help them eradicate whatever might threaten that pure devotion."¹⁴³

"Placement of the instruction about worship at the sanctuary in first position indicates clearly its priority for Deuteronomy, which assumes that the starting point for the proper, full, and exclusive love of the Lord (the primary demand of the first and second commandments and the Shema) is found in the way Israel carries out the activities of worship."¹⁴⁴

There is an obvious general movement from laws dealing with Israel's religious life (12:1-16:17) to those affecting her civil life (16:18-22:8) and finally to those touching personal life (22:9-26:15).

Two writers suggested the following outlines for these chapters.¹⁴⁵

Commandment	Merrill	Kaufman	Description
1	12:1-31	ch. 12	Fidelity
2	12:32-13:18	ch. 12	Worship
3	14:1-21	13:1-14:27	Name of God
4	14:22-16:17	14:28-16:17	Sabbath
5	16:18-18:22	16:18-18:22	Authority
6	19:1-22:8	19:1-22:8	Murder
7	22:9-23:18	22:9-23:19	Adultery
8	23:19-24:7	23:20-24:7	Theft
9	24:8-25:4	24:8-25:4	False witness
10	25:5-19	25:5-16	Coveting

". . . the entire second discourse of Moses (Deut. 5-26) is a single literary unit that convincingly demonstrates that the moral law informs the statutes, judgments . . . and commands of God."¹⁴⁶

In contrast with the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20-23), the Deuteronomic Code, as some scholars prefer to call this section (chs. 12-26), is a popular exposition rather than a formal legal code. Its purpose was to explain to the generation entering the land all the laws that needed clarification, emphasis, and application, in view of Israel's imminent entrance into Canaan. These laws reflect a centralized, monarchical society.

The value of this section of Scripture to the Christian today lies primarily in its revelation of the heart, mind, and will of God. The modern student of these chapters should look for this kind of insight here.

Constable: Deu 24:8--26:1

9. Laws arising from the ninth commandment 24:8-25:19

The ninth commandment is, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (5:20). There may be a deliberate descending order of heirarchy in the list of offended parties in this section beginning with the highest to the lowest.²⁷⁴

Constable: Deu 25:4

Animals 25:4

God's care for animals as His creatures lay behind this law. The Apostle Paul expounded the significance of this command (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18).

"The purpose clearly was not only to provide for the ox itself but to make the point by a fortiori argument that if a mere animal was worthy of humane treatment, how much more so was a human being created as the image of God."²⁷⁸

Constable: Deu 25:5-19

10. Laws arising from the tenth commandment 25:5-19

The tenth commandment is, "You shall not covet . . . anything that belongs to your neighbor" (5:21). The four laws in this section all deal with desire or intention as opposed to deed.

Constable: Deu 25:5-10

Selfishness in levirite marriage 25:5-10

The purpose of the levirate marriage ordinance was to enable a man who died before fathering an heir to obtain one and so perpetuate his name and estate. "Levirate" comes from the Latin word levir meaning husband's brother.

"The practice was common in the patriarchal period [cf. Gen. 38:1-10]. . . . Presumably the prohibition of sexual union with a brother's wife in Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21 refers to such an act while the brother is still living."²⁷⁹

"The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Ruth iv. 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 [cf. e.g., Gen. 13:17]. 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. . . . 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."²⁸⁰

The Israelites were to practice levirate marriage only in cases where the brothers had lived together (v. 5) and the remaining brother was not already married. Living together meant sharing the same estate, not necessarily residing under the same roof. When another kinsman voluntarily assumed the responsibility of the surviving brother, that brother was apparently under no obligation to marry his sister-in-law (cf. Ruth 4).

There were several reasons for this provision. These reasons were the importance of descendants in God's purposes for Israel, the welfare of the widow, and the demonstration of love for one's brother (cf. Gen. 38).²⁸¹

Constable: Deu 25:11-12

Unfair defense by a wife 25:11-12

God forbade an Israelite woman from gaining unfair advantage of her husband's adversary in hand-to-hand fighting. This is a rare example of punishment by mutilation in the Pentateuch (cf. Exod. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21).

Constable: Deu 25:13-16

Dishonest weights and measures 25:13-16

The Israelites were to use the same weights and measures for both buying and selling to insure fairness in business (vv. 13-16).

Constable: Deu 25:17-19

Desire for peace at any price 25:17-19

When the Israelites had entered the Promised Land and had attained a measure of rest there, they were to remember that God had commanded them to exterminate the Amalekites. They were to exterminate the Amalekites for their treatment of Israel in the wilderness (vv. 17-19; cf. Exod. 17:8-16; Num. 24:20; 1 Chron. 4:42-43).

"Particular importance is attached to the fate of the Amalekites in the Pentateuch, especially as a sign of God's faithfulness in fulfilling his promises."²⁸²

"Taken together, the laws of love and hate amount to the single requirement to love God, and consequently to love whom he loves and hate whom he hates."²⁸³

Guzik: Deu 25:1-19

Deuteronomy 25 - More Laws on Various Subjects

A. Two laws to protect criminals and animals.

1. (1-3) A limit on corporal punishment.

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, 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. 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.

a. They justify the righteous and condemn the guilty: This is the simple responsibility of all government and courts. As Paul described the role of government in Romans 13:4: For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

b. If the wicked man deserves to be beaten: Apparently, God considers that some criminals are wicked and deserve to be beaten. We seem to have a justice system today that considers itself more compassionate and kind than God Himself, yet we can't say that we live in a more just or safe society.

i. "Among the Mohammedans there are very few law-suits, and the reason is given . . . because they that sue others without just cause are to be whipped publicly." (Trapp)

c. Forty blows may he give him and no more: Though sometimes a beating was the appropriate punishment, God also agrees with the idea that there is a such thing as excessive punishment, and this was intended to prevent excessive punishment. Additionally, the beating was to be administered in the presence of the judge (and be beaten in his presence), so he could make sure the punishment was not excessive.

i. In 2 Corinthians 11:24, Paul listed this among his "apostolic credentials": From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. The forty stripes minus one means Paul was beaten by the Jewish authorities with thirty-nine blows on five different occasions. Paul did not receive 40 blows, as according to Deuteronomy 25:3 because as a common practice, the Jews only allowed 39 blows to be administered. This was to both show mercy and to scrupulously keep the law - one blow was left off to protect against a miscount.

2. (4) The command to not muzzle the ox.

You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.

a. You shall not muzzle an ox: This law simply commanded the humane treatment of a working animal. In those days, grain would be broken away from his husk by having an ox walk on it repeatedly (usually around a circle). It would be cruel for force the ox to walk on all the grain, yet to muzzle him so he couldn't eat of it.

b. You shall not muzzle an ox: In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul applied this principle to the minister's right to be supported by the people the ministers to. In fact, 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 leads us to believe that this is the real point God is making in this verse, because in that passage Paul asked, Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes?

B. Two laws dealing with family matters.

1. (5-10) The marriage obligation of surviving brothers.

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. 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. 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." 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," 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." And his name shall be called in Israel, "The house of him who had his sandal removed."

a. One of them dies and has no son: In ancient Israel it was seen as a great tragedy for a man to die without leaving descendants to carry on his name, and to give his family inheritance to. Therefore, if a man dies and has no son, it was the responsibility of one of his brothers to take the deceased brother's widow as a wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

i. "The practice of levirate marriage . . . was not peculiar to Israel, for it was practiced among the Hittites and Assyrians as well as in countries such as India, Africa and South America." (Thompson)

b. 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: When a son was born to this union, it would not be counted as the son of the surviving brother, but as son to the deceased brother.

i. Son here may simply mean child. "In the history of the interpretation of this Deuteronomic law, difference of opinion existed among Jewish expositors whether ben in v.5 meant 'son' or 'child.' The LXX and Josephus render it 'child.' Moses had already established that when no male heir existed, daughters would be heirs or their father's property (Num 27:1-8)." (Kalland)

c. He will not perform the duty of my husband's brother: If the brothers of the deceased man refused to take this responsibility, they were to be called to open shame by the widow. The shame was compounded as they would remove his sandal and the widow would spit in his face.

2. (11-12) Wives forbidden to interfere in their husband's fights.

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, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

a. Then you shall cut off her hand: In this difficult passage, various suggestions have been made as to why such a severe punishment was commanded. "Possibly it was representative of similar offences and provided a standard for judgment in all such cases. Perhaps also, the law arose from the desire to protect the reproductive organs and thus obviate anything that might prevent a man leaving descendants." (Thompson)

b. Your eye shall not pity her: "Partly because of the great mischief she did to him, both to his person and posterity, and partly to deter all women from immodest and impudent carriages, and to secure that modesty which is indeed the guardian of all the virtues, as immodesty is an inlet to all vices, as the sad experience of this degenerate age shows; and therefore it is not strange that it is so severely restrained and punished." (Matthew Poole, 1683)

C. Two laws commanding justice.

1. (13-16) God commands weights and measures be just.

You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. 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. For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the LORD your God.

2. (17-19) God commands Israel to justly destroy Amalek.

Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, 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. 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.

a. Remember what Amalek did: The Amalekite attack on the Israelites is recorded in Exodus 17. In response, Joshua led the armies of Israel in victory over the Amalekites as Moses prayed for them, assisted by Aaron and Hur.

b. Blot out the remembrance of Amalek under heaven: Because of God's strong command to battle against Amalek until they were completely conquered, many see the Amalekites as a picture of our flesh - which constantly battles against the spirit and must be struggled against until completely conquered (Galatians 5:17).

c. When the LORD your God has given you rest: Israel was to make this war against the Amalekites later, when they were at rest in the land. Some 400 years later, God directed Saul to make war against the Amalekites, and his failure to completely destroy them was the primary act of disobedience which cost Saul the throne (1 Samuel 15:2-9; 28:18).

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

DEUTERONOMY, the second law, a title which plainly shows what is the object of this book, namely, a recapitulation of the law. It was given in the form of public addresses to the people; and as Moses spoke in the prospect of his speedy removal, he enforced obedience to it by many forcible appeals to the Israelites, concerning their long and varied experience both of the mercies and the judgments of God. The minute notices of the heathen people with whom they had come in contact, but who afterward disappeared from the pages of history, as well as the accounts of the fertility and products of Canaan, and the counsels respecting the conquest of that country, fix the date of this book and the time of its composition by the hand of Moses. The close, however, must have been added by another; and, indeed, it is supposed by some to have formed the original preface to the Book of Joshua.

JFB: Deuteronomy (Outline)

• MOSES' SPEECH AT THE END OF THE FORTIETH YEAR. (Deu. 1:1-46)
• THE STORY IS CONTINUED. (Deu. 2:1-37)
• CONQUEST OF OG, KING OF BASHAN. (Deu. 3:1-20)
• AN EXHORTATION TO OBEDIENCE. (Deu 4:1-13)
• A PARTICULAR DISSUASIVE AGAINST IDOLATRY. (Deu. 4:14-40)
• A COMMEMORATION OF THE COVENANT IN HOREB. (Deu. 5:1-29)
• MOSES EXHORTS ISRAEL TO HEAR GOD AND TO KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. (Deu. 6:1-25)
• ALL COMMUNION WITH THE NATIONS FORBIDDEN. (Deu. 7:1-26)
• AN EXHORTATION TO OBEDIENCE. (Deu. 8:1-20)
• MOSES DISSUADES THEM FROM THE OPINION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Deu. 9:1-25)
• GOD'S MERCY IN RESTORING THE TWO TABLES. (Deu. 10:1-22)
• AN EXHORTATION TO OBEDIENCE. (Deu. 11:1-32)
• MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY TO BE DESTROYED. (Deu 12:1-15)
• BLOOD PROHIBITED. (Deu 12:16-25)
• HOLY THINGS TO BE EATEN IN THE HOLY PLACE. (Deu 12:26-32)
• ENTICERS TO IDOLATRY TO BE PUT TO DEATH. (Deu 13:1-5)
• WITHOUT REGARD TO NEARNESS OF RELATION. (Deu 13:6-18)
• GOD'S PEOPLE MUST NOT DISFIGURE THEMSELVES IN MOURNING. (Deu 14:1-2)
• WHAT MAY BE EATEN, AND WHAT NOT. (Deu. 14:3-21)
• OF BEASTS. (Deu 14:4-8)
• THE SEVENTH YEAR, A YEAR OF RELEASE FOR THE POOR. (Deu 15:1-11)
• HEBREW SERVANTS' FREEDOM. (Deu 15:12-19)
• THE FEAST OF THE PASSOVER. (Deu. 16:1-22)
• THINGS SACRIFICED MUST BE SOUND. (Deu 17:1)
• IDOLATERS MUST BE SLAIN. (Deu 17:2-7)
• THE PRIESTS AND JUDGES TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES. (Deu 17:8-13)
• THE ELECTION AND DUTY OF A KING. (Deu 17:14-20)
• THE LORD IS THE PRIESTS' AND THE LEVITES' INHERITANCE. (Deu 18:1-8)
• THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE NATIONS ARE TO BE AVOIDED. (Deu 18:9-14)
• CHRIST THE PROPHET IS TO BE HEARD. (Deu 18:15-19)
• OF THE CITIES OF REFUGE. (Deu 19:1-13)
• THE LANDMARK IS NOT TO BE REMOVED. (Deu 19:14)
• TWO WITNESSES REQUIRED. (Deu 19:15)
• PUNISHMENT OF A FALSE WITNESS. (Deu 19:16-21) But if convicted of perjury, it will be sufficient for his own condemnation, and his punishment shall be exactly the same as would have overtaken the object of his malignant prosecution. (See on Exo 21:23; see also Lev 24:20).
• THE PRIESTS' EXHORTATION TO ENCOURAGE THE PEOPLE TO BATTLE. (Deu. 20:1-20)
• EXPIATION OF UNCERTAIN MURDER. (Deu 21:1-9)
• THE TREATMENT OF A CAPTIVE TAKEN TO WIFE. (Deu 21:10-23)
• OF HUMANITY TOWARD BRETHREN. (Deu 22:1-4)
• THE SEX TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY APPAREL. (Deu 22:5-12)
• WHO MAY AND WHO MAY NOT ENTER INTO THE CONGREGATION. (Deu. 23:1-25)
• OF DIVORCES. (Deu. 24:1-22)
• STRIPES MUST NOT EXCEED FORTY. (Deu. 25:1-19)
• THE CONFESSION OF HIM THAT OFFERS THE BASKET OF FIRST FRUITS. (Deu 26:1-15)
• THE PEOPLE ARE TO WRITE THE LAW UPON STONES. (Deu 27:1-10)
• THE TRIBES DIVIDED ON GERIZIM AND EBAL. (Deu 27:11-13)
• THE BLESSINGS FOR OBEDIENCE. (Deu. 28:1-68)
• AN EXHORTATION TO OBEDIENCE. (Deu. 29:1-29)
• THE COMMANDMENT IS MANIFEST. (Deu 30:11-14)
• DEATH AND LIFE ARE SET BEFORE THE ISRAELITES. (Deu 30:15-20)
• MOSES ENCOURAGES THE PEOPLE AND JOSHUA. (Deu 31:1-8)
• HE DELIVERS THE LAW TO THE PRIESTS, TO READ IT EVERY SEVENTH YEAR TO THE PEOPLE. (Deu 31:9-13)
• MOSES' SONG, WHICH SETS FORTH THE PERFECTIONS OF GOD. (Deu. 32:1-43)
• THE MAJESTY OF GOD. (Deu. 33:1-28)
• MOSES FROM MOUNT NEBO VIEWS THE LAND. (Deu 34:1-12)

TSK: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

The book of Deuteronomy marks the end of the Pentateuch, commonly called the Law of Moses; a work every way worthy of God its author, and only less than the New Testament, the Law and Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Its antiquity places it at the head of all the writings in the world; and the various subjects it embraces render it of the utmost importance to every part of the civilized world. Its philosophy, history, geography, and chronology entitle it to the respect of the whole human race; while its system of theology and religion demonstrably proves it to be a revelation from God. The Law of Moses is more properly the Law of Jehovah, יהוה [Strong’s 03068] תורה [Strong’s 08451], torah yehowah , the grand title of the Pentateuch. Could we conceive Moses to have been the author of this system, we must consider him more than mortal - no wisdom of man has ever yet invented such a Code of Laws. His merit, however, has been disputed, and his laws severely criticised, by persons whose interest it was to prove religion a cheat, because they had none themselves. To some, whose mental taste and feeling are strangely perverted, everything in heathenism wears not only the most fascinating aspect, but appears to lay claim to and possess every excellence; and hence they have called up Confucius, Menu, Zoraster, and Mohammed himself, to dispute the palm with Moses! On this subject in general, it may be just necessary to add, that the utmost that can be said of all laws, merely human, is, that they restrain vices, through the terror of punishment. God’s law not only restrains vice, but it infuses virtue. It alone brings man to the footstool of his Maker; and keeps him dependent on the strong for strength, on the wise for wisdom, and on the merciful for grace. It abounds with promises of support, and salvation for the present life, which no false system dared ever to propose. every where, Moses, in the most confident manner, pledges his God for the fulfilment of all the exceeding great and precious promises, with which his laws are so plentifully interspersed; and while they were obedient they could say, " Not one word hath failed us, of all the good things which the Lord our God spake concerning us." Who that dispassionately reads the Pentateuch, that considers it in itself and in its reference to that glorious Gospel which it was intended to introduce, can for a moment deny it the palm of infinite superiority over all the systems ever framed or imagined by man? Well might the Israelitish people triumphantly exclaim, " There is none like the God of Jeshurun!" and with what striking propriety does the glorious legislator add, " Happy art thou, O Israel! who is like unto thee? O people, saved of the Lord!" Finally, the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, which are amassed in these five books, have enriched the whole civilized earth, and, indeed, greatly promoted that very civilization. They have been a kind of text-book to almost every writer on geology, geography, chronology, astronomy, natural history, ethics, jurisprudence, political economy, theology, poetry, and criticism, from the time of Moses to the present day - books to which the choicest writers and philosophers in Pagan antiquity, have been deeply indebted; and which were the text-books to all the prophets - books from which the flimsy writers against Divine Revelation have derived their natural religion, and all their moral excellence - books written in all the energy, and purity, of the incomparable language in which they are composed; and lastly, books, which for importance of matter, variety of information, dignity of sentiment, accuracy of facts, impartiality, simplicity, and sublimity of narration, tending to improve and ennoble the intellect and ameliorate the physical and moral condition of man, have never been equalled, and can only be paralleled by the Gospel of the Son of God! Fountain of endless mercy, justice, truth, and beneficence! How much are thy gifts and bounties neglected by those who do not read this law; and by those who having read it, are not morally improved by it, and made wise unto salvation!

TSK: Deuteronomy 25 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Deu 25:1, Stripes must not exceed forty; Deu 25:4, The ox is not to be muzzled; Deu 25:5, Of raising seed unto a brother; Deu 25:11, Of the immodest woman; Deu 25:13, Of unjust weights and measures; Deu 25:17, The memory of Amalek is to be blotted out.

Poole: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

FIFTH BOOK of MOSES, CALLED DEUTERONOMY

THE ARGUMENT

Moses, in the two last months of his life, rehearseth what God had done for them, and their frequent murmurings, rebellions, and constant ingratitude. He begs to enter into the land, but is permitted only to see it. He forbiddeth any communion with the nations for several reasons, De 8 . He gives a short repetition of those sundry laws, moral, ceremonial, judicial, and military, which he had given them, from whence this book is called DEUTERONOMY. Then, after many exhortations, he prophesieth of Christ; afterwards he shows how matters of war are to be managed, and, giving many other particular directions with reference to duties, conditions, and persons of both sexes, he pronounceth blessings on the obedient, and curses on the disobedient: he then gives a charge for laying up and reading of the law at certain times, and every seven years to be solemnly read before all the people; he composeth a song for common use, comprising the wonderful things here mentioned: he prophesieth of Christ’ s coming, and the calling of the Gentiles, seeth the land, and dieth, leaving Joshua, after he had consecrated him, to succeed.

Poole: Deuteronomy 25 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 25

Judges must do justly, Deu 25:1,2 . Stripes not to exceed forty, Deu 25:3 . The threshing ox not to be muzzled, Deu 25:4 . The duty of raising seed unto a brother, Deu 25:5-10 . The punishment of an immodest woman, Deu 25:11,12 . A just weight and measure, Deu 25:13-16 . The memory of Amalek is to be blotted out, Deu 25:17-19 .

MHCC: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

This book repeats much of the history and of the laws contained in the three foregoing books: Moses delivered it to Israel a little before his death, both by word of mouth, that it might affect, and by writing, that it might abide. The men of that generation to which the law was first given were all dead, and a new generation was sprung up, to whom God would have it repeated by Moses himself, now they were going to possess the land of Canaan. The wonderful love of God to his church is set forth in this book; how he ever preserved his church for his own mercies sake, and would still have his name called upon among them. Such are the general outlines of this book, the whole of which shows Moses' love for Israel, and marks him an eminent type of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us apply the exhortations and persuasions to our own consciences, to excite our minds to a believing, grateful obedience to the commands of God.

MHCC: Deuteronomy 25 (Chapter Introduction)

(Deu 25:1-3) Extent of punishment.

(Deu 25:4) The ox that treadeth the corn.

(Deu 25:5-12) Marriage of a brother's wife.

(Deu 25:13-16) Of unjust weights.

(Deu 25:17-19) War against Amalek.

Matthew Henry: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Fifth Book of Moses, Called Deuteronomy

This book is a repetition of very much both of the history and of the laws contained in the three foregoing books, which repetition Moses delivered to Israel (both by word of mouth, that it might affect, and by writing, that it might abide) a little before his death. There is no new history in it but that of the death of Moses in the last chapter, nor any new revelation to Moses, for aught that appears, and therefore the style here is not, as before, The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying. But the former laws are repeated and commented upon, explained and enlarged, and some particular precepts added to them, with copius reasonings for the enforcing of them: in this Moses was divinely inspired and assisted, so that this is as truly the word of the Lord by Moses as that which was spoken to him with an audible voice out of the tabernacle of the congregation , Lev 1:1. The Greek interpreters call it Deuteronomy, which signifies the second law, or a second edition of the law, not with amendments, for there needed none, but with additions, for the further direction of the people in divers cases not mentioned before. Now, I. It was much for the honour of the divine law that it should be thus repeated; how great were the things of that law which was thus inculcated, and how inexcusable would those be by whom they were counted as a strange thing! Hos 8:12. II. There might be a particular reason for the repeating of it now; the men of that generation to which the law was first given were all dead, and a new generation had sprung up, to whom God would have it repeated by Moses himself, that, if possible, it might make a lasting impression upon them. Now that they were just going to take possession of the land of Canaan, Moses must read the articles of agreement to them, that they might know upon what terms and conditions they were to hold and enjoy that land, and might understand that they were upon their good behaviour in it. III. It would be of great use to the people to have those parts of the law thus gathered up and put together which did more immediately concern them and their practice; for the laws which concerned the priests and Levites, and the execution of their offices, are not repeated: it was enough for them that they were once delivered. But, in compassion to the infirmities of the people, the laws of more common concern are delivered a second time. Precept must be upon precept, and line upon line, Isa 28:10. The great and needful truths of the gospel should be often pressed upon people by the ministers of Christ. To write the same things (says Paul, Phi 3:1) to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. What God has spoken once we have need to hear twice, to hear many times, and it is well if, after all, it be duly perceived and regarded. In three ways this book of Deuteronomy was magnified and made honourable: - 1. The king was to write a copy of it with his own hand, and to read therein all the days of his life, ch. 17, 18, 19. 2. It was to be written upon great stones plastered, at their passing over Jordan, Deu 27:2, Deu 27:3. 3. It was to be read publicly every seventh year, at the feast of tabernacles, by the priests, in the audience of all Israel, Deu 31:9, etc. The gospel is a kind of Deuteronomy, a second law, a remedial law, a spiritual law, a law of faith; by it we are under the law of Christ, and it is a law that makes the comers thereunto perfect.

This book of Deuteronomy begins with a brief rehearsal of the most remarkable events that had befallen the Israelites since they came from Mount Sinai. In the fourth chapter we have a most pathetic exhortation to obedience. In the twelfth chapter, and so on to the twenty-seventh, are repeated many particular laws, which are enforced (ch. 27 and 28) with promises and threatenings, blessings and curses, formed into a covenant, ch. 29 and 30. Care is taken to perpetuate the remembrance of these things among them (ch. 31), particularly by a song (ch. 32), and so Moses concludes with a blessing, ch. 33. All this was delivered by Moses to Israel in the last month of his life. The whole book contains the history but of two months; compare Deu 1:3 with Jos 4:19, the latter of which was the thirty days of Israel's mourning for Moses; see how busy that great and good man was to do good when he knew that his time was short, how quick his motion when he drew near his rest. Thus we have more recorded of what our blessed Saviour said and did in the last week of his life than in any other. The last words of eminent persons make or should make deep impressions. Observe, for the honour of this book, that when our Saviour would answer the devil's temptations with, It is written, he fetched all his quotations out of this book, Mat 4:4, Mat 4:7, Mat 4:10.

Matthew Henry: Deuteronomy 25 (Chapter Introduction)

Here is, I. A law to moderate the scourging of malefactors (Deu 25:1-3). II. A law in favour of the ox the treads out the corn (Deu 25:4). III. For the disgracing of him that refused to marry his brother's widow (Deu 25:5-10). IV. For the punishment of an immodest woman (Deu 25:11, Deu 25:12). V. For just weights and measures (Deu 25:13-16). VI. For the destroying of Amalek (Deu 25:17, etc.).

Constable: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

The title of this book in the Hebrew Bible was its first two words, elleh haddebarim, which translate into English as "these are the words" (1:1). Ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaties began with exactly the same words.¹ So the Jewish title gives a strong clue to the literary character of Deuteronomy.

The English title comes from the Septuagint (Greek) translation. "Deuteronomy" means "second law" in Greek. We might suppose that this title arose from the idea that Deuteronomy records the law as Moses repeated it to the new generation of Israelites who were preparing to enter the land. This is not the case. It came from a mistranslation of a phrase in 17:18. There God commanded Israel's kings to prepare "a copy of this law" for themselves. The Septuagint translators mistakenly rendered this phrase "this second [repeated] law." The Vulgate (Latin) translation, influenced by the Septuagint, translated the phrase "second law" as deuteronomium from which Deuteronomy is a transliteration. Deuteronomy is to some extent, however, a repetition to the new generation of the Law God gave at Mt. Sinai. Thus God overruled the translators' error and gave us a title for the book in English that is appropriate in view of the contents of the book.

Date and Writer

Moses evidently wrote this book on the plains of Moab shortly before his death, which occurred about 1406 B.C.

The Mosaic authorship of this book is quite easy to establish. The book claims to be the words of Moses (1:5, 9; 5:1; 27:1, 8; 29:2; 31:1, 30; 33:1, 29) and his writing (31:9, 22, 24). Other Old Testament books also assert the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy (1 Kings 2:3; 8:53; 2 Kings 14:6; 18:6, 12). Jesus Christ believed Moses wrote Deuteronomy (Matt. 19:7-8; Mark 10:3-5; 12:19; John 5:46-47) as did the Apostle Peter (Acts 3:22), Stephen (Acts 7:37-38), Paul (Rom. 10:19; 1 Cor. 9:9), and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 10:28).

"The authorship of no other book in the Old Testament is so explicitly emphasized."²

The form in which Moses wrote Deuteronomy is very similar to that of ancient Near Eastern suzerainty-vassal treaties dating before and during the Mosaic era. This structural evidence confirms an early date of composition.³

Most conservative commentators prefer to regard the record of Moses' death and a few editorial comments as the work of a later writer or writers. Of course, Moses could have written these verses too.

In spite of such conclusive evidence some scholars prefer a later date for Deuteronomy. The critics favor a post-Mosaic but pre-seventh century date, a seventh century date in King Josiah's era, or a postexilic date.⁴

Scope

Deuteronomy is similar to Leviticus in that both books contain a record of instructions and speeches almost exclusively. Deuteronomy is not so much a book of history, as Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are, as it is a book of law. In contrast to Leviticus, however, Moses addressed Deuteronomy to all the Israelites more than to the priests and Levites.

The scope of history covered in Deuteronomy is very brief. All the events recorded took place on the plains of Moab probably within a few weeks just before Israel's entrance into Canaan.

"According to the Index locorum of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece Deuteronomy is quoted or otherwise cited at least 95 times in the New Testament (compared to 103 for Genesis, 113 for Exodus, 35 for Leviticus, and 20 for Numbers), making it one of the favorite Old Testament books of Jesus and the apostles."⁵

Character

"The book of Deuteronomy is the document prepared by Moses as a witness to the dynastic covenant which the Lord gave to Israel in the plains of Moab (cf. 31:26)."⁶

Theology

"In line with the general correspondence of the form of a thing to its function, it is safe to say that one cannot understand the theology of Deuteronomy without reference to its covenant form and structure . . . It is no exaggeration to maintain that the concept of covenant lies at the very heart of the book and may be said to be the center of its theology.

"Covenant by its very definition demands at least three elements--the two contracting parties and the document that describes and outlines the purpose, nature, and requirements of the relationship. Thus the three major rubrics of the theology of Deuteronomy are (1) Yahweh, the Great King and covenant initiator; (2) Israel, the vassal and covenant recipient; and (3) the book itself, the covenant organ, complete with the essentials of standard treaty documents. This means, moreover, that all the revelation of the book must be seen through the prism of covenant and not abstractly removed from the peculiar historical and ideological context in which it originated."⁷

"The theological values of Deuteronomy can hardly be exaggerated. It stands as the wellspring of biblical historical revelation. It is a prime source for both OT and NT theology. Whether the covenant, the holiness of God, or the concept of the people of God is the unifying factor of OT theology, each finds emphasis and remarkable definition in Deuteronomy."⁸

Message⁹

Let me share with you a couple of quotations that point out the importance of this book.

"Deuteronomy is one of the greatest books of the Old Testament. Its significance on the domestic and personal religion of all ages has not been surpassed by any other book in the Bible. It is quoted over eighty times in the New Testament . . . in all but six books . . . and thus it belongs to a small group of four Old Testaments books (Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah) to which the early Christians made frequent reference."¹⁰

"The book of Deuteronomy is the most important book in the Old Testament from the standpoint of God's revelation to man."¹¹

Deuteronomy is not just a recapitulation of things previously revealed in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It is a selective digest of matters most important to the average Israelite in his or her relationship with God. Moses spoke as an aged father to his children. These are the parting words of the man who communed with God face to face. His words in Deuteronomy spring from a personal and intimate knowledge of God that had matured over 120 years.

One of the striking features of this book is the frequent references to love that recur throughout it. God's love for the patriarchs and later the whole nation of Israel is obvious in the previous four books of the Pentateuch, but Moses never articulated it directly. In Deuteronomy for the first time Moses revealed that it was God's love for Israel that motivated Him to deal with the Israelites as He had.

One of the great revelations of this book is the motivation of God. God's love for people moved Him to bless. Moses referred to God's love for people as the motivation of His government in three of the book's major sections.

It constitutes the climax of Moses' first address to the people (1:6-4:40) in which he reviewed God's faithfulness to the Israelites. It was because God loved them that He had treated them as He had (4:32-40, esp. v. 37).

In the second address, which is an exposition of the Mosaic Law (chs. 5-26), Moses explained that God's love motivated His laws (7:7-11; 10:12-22, esp. v. 15; 15:16; 23:5; et al.).

In the conclusion of the book, which records Moses' blessing of the nation (ch. 33), he again reminded the people of God's love for them (33:2-5, esp. v. 3a).

Not only does Deuteronomy reveal that God's love is what motivates Him to govern His people as He does. It also emphasizes that man's love for God should be what motivates us to obey God (cf. 1 John 4:19). This theme too recurs throughout the book.

In Moses' review of the law (chs. 5-26) he called on the Israelites to love God (5:9-10; 6:4-5; 7:9; 10:12-13; 11:1, 13-14, 22-23; 13:1-13, esp. vv. 1-3; 19:8-9). The Israelites' obedience to God's laws expressed their love for God. Love is the most proper and adequate motivation for obedience and service.

We hear this theme again in Moses' third address (chs. 29-30) in which Moses exhorted the new generation of Israelites to obey their covenant, the Mosaic Covenant (30:6, 15-20).

The message of the book then is that God's love for man is the motivation of His government, and man's love for God should be the motivation of his obedience.

This emphasis on love appears even more striking in comparison with other ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties. The ancient Near Eastern kings delineated clearly the rights of the ruler and the responsibilities of the subjects in these documents. However the motivation was self-interest, the opposite of love. Concern for others was present, but self-interest predominated.

Since Moses set Deuteronomy in the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty we can learn much about how he viewed Israel's relationship to God.

To quote Thompson again, "Both the literary shape of Deuteronomy and its underlying central concept provide an important clue to the basic theology of the book. Yahweh, the God of Israel, appears in a strong covenantal setting. He is the great King, the Lord of the covenant. From this central concept Israel's finest theological ideas derived."¹²

These "ideas" include the fact that Yahweh is the Lord of the covenant and the God of history.

Obedience to God and His covenant brings blessing whereas disobedience incurs curses. Israel was the people of the covenant.

The people were to worship their Lord by loving Him with their hearts and remembering Him and His acts with their minds.

There are perhaps four basic implications of this revelation and these correspond to four major sections of the book.

1. It is important to remember God's past faithfulness to appreciate His love (1:6-4:40). God commanded the Israelites to remember. Forgetfulness was a sin that would lead them to ingratitude and ultimately to apostasy. To forget was to rebel against God. Remembering the past would remind the people of God's love and rekindle their love for Him. Love as well as trust rests on confidence. We can love God only when we have confidence in Him.

2. God's laws are an expression of His love (chs. 5-26). Because man is a sinner he needs divine laws. God's provision of these laws is an expression of His love for mankind. The specific laws in the Mosaic Code expressed God's love because God intended them to result in Israel's blessing and welfare. Often we think laws are undesirable because they curb our freedom. However, God curbs our freedom to keep us from evil, not to keep us from good.

3. Only love for God will adequately motivate a person to be obedient to God's laws (chs. 27-28). These laws in Israel were so severe that the only motive strong enough to produce consistent obedience was love. Moses urged the Israelites to cultivate their love for God as they prepared to renew the covenant. Self-confidence had failed their fathers, and it would fail them too. Obedience to God can be a joyful or a bitter experience depending on one's motivation.

When we know God we love Him, and when we love God we will want to obey Him.

4. Obedience to God demonstrates love for Him (chs. 29-30). While it is possible to obey God with lesser motives, it is impossible to be consistently obedient without love for God. Consistent obedience is not the same as sinless perfection. The measure of one's love for God is the measure of his or her obedience to the revealed will of God (1 John 5:3). The degree of our commitment to do the will of God is the true measure of our love for God. The real test of our love for God is what we do more than how we feel.

Constable: Deuteronomy (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction: the covenant setting 1:1-5

II. Moses' first major address: a review of God's faithfulness 1:6-4:40

A. God's past dealings with Israel 1:6-3:29

1. God's guidance from Sinai to Kadesh 1:6-46

2. The march from Kadesh to the Amorite frontier 2:1-23

3. The conquest of the kingdom of Sihon 2:24-37

4. The conquest of the kingdom of Og 3:1-11

5. A review of the distribution of the conquered land 3:12-20

6. Moses' anticipation of future blessing 3:21-29

B. An exhortation to observe the law faithfully 4:1-40

1. The appeal to hearken and obey 4:1-8

2. God's appearance at Mt. Horeb 4:9-14

3. The prohibition of idolatry 4:15-24

4. The consequences of idolatry 4:25-31

5. The uniqueness of Yahweh and Israel 4:32-40

III. Historical interlude: preparation for the covenant text 4:41-49

A. The appointment of cities of refuge in Transjordan 4:41-43

B. Introduction to the second address 4:44-49

IV. Moses' second major address: an exposition of the law chs. 5-26

A. The essence of the law and its fulfillment ch. 5-11

1. Exposition of the Decalogue and its promulgation ch. 5

2. Exhortation to love Yahweh ch. 6

3. Examples of the application of the principles chs. 7-11

B. An exposition of selected covenant laws 12-25

1. Laws arising from the first commandment 12:1-31

2. Laws arising from the second commandment 12:32-13:18

3. Laws arising from the third commandment 14:1-21

4. Laws arising from the fourth commandment 14:22-16:17

5. Laws arising from the fifth commandment 16:18-18:22

6. Laws arising from the sixth commandment 19:1-22:8

7. Laws arising from the seventh commandment 22:9-23:18

8. Laws arising from the eighth commandment 23:19-24:7

9. Laws arising from the ninth commandment 24:8-25:4

10. Laws arising from the tenth commandment 25:5-19

C. Covenant celebration, confirmation, and conclusion ch. 26

1. Laws of covenant celebration and confirmation 26:1-15

2. Summary exhortation 26:16-19

V. Preparations for renewing the covenant chs. 27:1-29:1

A. The ceremony at Shechem 27:1-13

B. The curses that follow disobedience to specific stipulations 27:14-26

C. The blessings that follow obedience 28:1-14

D. The curses that follow disobedience to general stipulations 28:15-68

E. Narrative interlude 29:1

VI. Moses' third major address: an exhortation to obedience chs. 29:2-30:20

A. An appeal for faithfulness 29:2-29

1. Historical review 29:2-8

2. The purpose of the assembly 29:9-15

3. The consequences of disobedience 29:16-29

B. A call to decision ch. 30

1. The possibility of restoration 30:1-10

2. The importance of obedience 30:11-20

VII. Moses' last acts chs. 31-34

A. The duties of Israel's future leaders 31:1-29

1. The presentation of Joshua 31:1-8

2. The seventh year covenant renewal ceremony 31:9-13

3. The commissioning of Joshua 31:14-23

4. The preservation of God's words 31:24-29

B. The Song of Moses 31:30-32:44

1. The introduction to the song 31:30

2. The song itself 32:1-43

3. The conclusion to the song 32:44

C. Narrative interlude 32:45-52

1. Moses' exhortation to obedience 32:45-47

2. The announcement of Moses' death 32:48-52

D. Moses' blessing of the tribes ch. 33

E. Moses' death and burial: narrative epilogue ch. 34

You will notice that there is a general alternation between narrative (sections I, III, V, and VII) and didactic (sections II, IV, and VI) material. However there is some mixture of narrative and didactic material in sections V and VII.

We can also divide the revelation in this book according to the general arrangement of the typical form of a suzerain-vassal treaty that was common in the ancient Near East.¹³

I. Preamble: Covenant mediator 1:1-5

II. Historical prologue: Covenant history 1:6-4:49

III. Stipulations: Covenant life chs. 5-26

A. The Great Commandment chs. 5-11

B. Ancillary commandments chs. 12-26

IV. Sanctions: Covenant ratification chs. 27-30

V. Dynastic disposition: Covenant continuity chs. 31-34

Constable: Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy

Bibliography

Adams, Jay. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980.

Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII." Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959):339-46.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

"Annotated Bibliography on Deuteronomy." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):78-89.

Ap-Thomas, D. R. "All the King's Horses." In Proclamation and Presence, pp. 135-151. Edited by J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter. Richmond: John Knox, 1970.

Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Baker, John Austin. "Deuteronomy and World Problems." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (1984):3-17.

Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Baly, Dennis. "Elath, Ezion-geber, and the Red Sea." Biblical Illustrator 9:3 (Spring 1983):66-69.

_____. The Geography of the Bible. New York: Harper, 1957.

Barrett, Michael P. V. "True Religion: A Matter of the Heart." Biblical Perspective 19:2 (November 1985):21-28.

Beitzel, Barry J. "The Right of the Firstborn (Pi Snayim) in the Old Testament." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 179-90. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Bell, Robert D. "The Cures for Self-Righteousness." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):16-20.

Bellefontaine, Elizabeth. "Deuteronomy 21:18-21: Reviewing the Case of the Rebellious Son." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13 (July 1979):12-31.

Betlyon, John Wilson. "The Cult of Aserah/Elat at Sidon." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44:1 (January 1985):53-56.

Blenkinsopp, J. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

Block, Daniel I. "Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:3 (September 2001):385-408.

Boston, James R. "The Wisdom Influence upon the Song of Moses." Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968):198-202.

Bralik, Georg. "Law as Gospel: Justification and Pardon According to the Deuteronomic Torah." Interpretation 38 (January 1984):5-14.

Cairns, I. Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. International Theological Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992.

Carmichael, Calum M. "Forbidden Mixtures." Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):394-415.

Carroll, R. P. "The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel." Vetus Testamentum 19:4 (October 1969):408-14.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Chan, Kim-Kwong. "You Shall Not Eat These Abominable Things: An Examination Of Different Interpretations On Deuteronomy 14:3-20." East Asia Journal of Theology 3:1 (1985):88-106.

Chirichigno, Greg. "A Theological Investigation of Motivation in Old Testament Law." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24:4 (December 1981):303-13.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Divine Hardening in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):410-34.

Cole, Mary M. "Transmitting Values to New Generations." Studies in Formative Spirituality 7:1 (February 1986):21-32.

Collier, Gary D. "The Problem of Deuteronomy: In Search of a Perspective." Restoration Quarterly 26:4 (1983):215-33.

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.

_____. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

_____. Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Crater, Tim. "Bill Gothard's View of the Exception Clause." Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-12.

Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. and David Noel Freedman. "The Blessing of Moses." Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1948):191-210.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Davies, Eryl W. "The Meaning of Pi Senayim in Deuteronomy XXI 17." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):341-47.

Day, John. "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature." Journal of Biblical Literature 105:3 (September 1986):385-408.

de Boer, Pieter A. H. "Some Observations on Deuteronomy VI 4 and 5." In Von Kanaan bis Kerala, pp. 45-52. Edited by W. C. Delssman, et al. Kevelaer, Germany: Verlag Butzer and Bercker, 1982.

Deere, Jack S. "Deuteronomy." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 259-324. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dion, Paul E. "Early Evidence for the Ritual Significance of the Base of the Altar' around Deut. 12:27 LXX." Journal of Biblical Literature 106:4 (1987):487-92.

Doron, Pinchas. "Motive Clauses in the Laws of Deuteronomy: Their Forms, Functions and Contents." Hebrew Annual Review 2 (1978):61-77.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.

Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd. ed. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902.

Duke, Rodney K. "The Portion of the Levite: Another Reading of Deuteronomy 18:6-8." Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):193-201.

Dumbrell, William. J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

Duncan, Dan. "Berachoth and Taanith." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):55-57.

Elayi, Josette. "Name of Deuteronomy's Author Found on Seal Ring." Biblical Archaeology Review 13:5 (September-October 1987):54-56.

Eliade, M. The Sacred and the Profane. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Epstein, Isidore. Judaism. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1959.

Eslinger, L. "Watering Egypt (Deuteronomy XI 10-11)." Vetus Testamentum 37:1 (January 1987):85-90.

Fawver, Jay D., and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September):270-85.

Fisch, Harold. Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature series. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Fisher, Eugene J. "Lex Talionis in the Bible and Rabbinic Tradition." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19:3 (Summer 1982):582-87.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence." Theological Studies 37:2 (June 1976):197-226.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church" In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Gaster, Theodor H. "An Ancient Eulogy on Israel: Deuteronomy 33 3-5, 26-29." Journal of Biblical Literature 66 (1947):53-62.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce: Thoughts on the Meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9." Churchman 92:2 (1978):134-43.

Goldberg, Michael L. "The Story of the Moral: Gifts or Bribes in Deuteronomy?" Interpretation 38:1 (January 1984):15-25.

Gordis, Robert. "The Text and Meaning of Deuteronomy 33 27." Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1947):69-72.

Gray, John. The Legacy of Canaan. Vol. 5 of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum series. 2nd revised edition. Leidon, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Haffner, Al. The High Cost of Free Love. San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Publishers, 1989.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Harton, George M. "Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-30 in History and in Eschatology." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982.

Hays, J. Daniel. "Applying the Old Testament Law Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):21-35.

Heiser, Michael S. "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):52-74.

Heth, William A., and Gordon J Wenham. Jesus and Divorce. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984.

Hoftijzer, J., and G. van der Kooij. Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1976.

Hoppe, Leslie J. "Deuteronomy and the Poor." The Bible Today 24:6 (November 1986):371-75.

_____. "Elders and Deuteronomy." Eglise et Theologie 14 (1983):259-72.

Houtman, C. "Another Look at Forbidden Mixtures." Vetus Testamentum 24:2 (1984):226-28.

Hurley, James B. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1939 ed., S.v. "Deuteronomy," by George L. Robinson.

Isaksson, Abel. "Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple." Translated by Neil Tomkinson. Th.D. dissertation, University of Uppsala, 1965.

Janzen, J. Gerald. "On the Most Important Word in the Shema (Deuteronomy VI 4-5)." Vetus Testamentum 37:3 (July 1987):280-300.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Johnston, Robert M. "The Least of the Commandments': Deuteronomy 22:6-7 in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity." Andrews University Seminary Studies 20:3 (Autumn 1982):205-15.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Kalland, Earl S. "Deuteronomy." In Deuteronomy-2 Samuel. Vol. 3 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Kaufman, Stephen A. "The Stucture of the Deuteronomic Law." MAARAV 1 (1978-79):105-58.

Keil, C.F., and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch, 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p., reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 60 (1971):3-11.

Kline, Meredith G. "Deuteronomy." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 155-204. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

_____. Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Laney, J. Carl. "Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Issue of Divorce." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):9-13

_____. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981.

Hartley, J. E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1992.

Lemaire, Andre. "Who or What Was Yahweh's Asherah?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:6 (November-December 1984):42-51.

Lemche, N. P. "The Manumission of Slaves--The Fallow Year--The Sabbatical Year--The Jobel Year." Vetus Testamentum 26 (January 1976):38-59.

Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Longman, Tremper, III. "The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif." Westminster Theological Journal 44 (Fall 1982):290-307.

Manor, Dale W. "A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as It Relates to the Bible." Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin NS20 (Fall 1982):33-52.

Marcus, David. "Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):31-52.

Mattill, A. J., Jr. "Representative Universalism and the Conquest of Canaan." Concordia Theological Monthly 35:1 (1967):8-17.

Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott; 1981.

McBride, S. Dean, Jr. "Polity of the Covenant People." Interpretation 41:3 (July 1987):229-44.

McCarthy, Dennis J. "Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship between Yahweh and Israel." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965):144-47.

_____. Treaty and Covenant. 2nd ed. Analecta Biblica. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978.

McKeating, Henry. "Sanctions Against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11 (1979):57-72.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

_____. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "Remembering: A Central Theme in Biblical Worship." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):27-36.

_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Millard, Alan R. "King Og's Iron Bed: Fact or Fancy?" Bible Review 6:2 (April 1990):16-21, 44.

_____ "The Question of Israelite Literacy." Bible Review 3:3 (Fall 1987):22-31.

Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy. Interpretation series. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

_____. "The Human Sabbath: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology." Princeton Seminary Bulletin NS6:2 (1985):81-97.

Minnick, Mark. "The Lesson of the Dietary Laws." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):29-37.

Moessner, David P. "Luke 9:1-50: Luke's Preview of the Journey of the Prophet Like Moses of Deuteronomy." Journal of Biblical Literature 102:4 (December 1983):575-605.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. By the Author, P.O. Box 1276, Jerusalem, 1983.

Moran, William L. "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1963):77-87.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morgan, J. P. "The Morality of Suicide: Issues and Options." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):214-30.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972.

Neal, Marshall. "A God Who Desires to Communicate." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):38-47.

Nestle, D. Eberhard, ed. Novum Testamentum Graece. 21st ed. Stuttgart: Privileg. Wurtt. Bibelanstalt, 1952.

New Scofield Reference Bible. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, William Culbertson, Charles L. Feinberg, Allan A. MacRae, Clarence Mason, Alva J. McClain, Wilbur M. Smith, and John F. Walvoord. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Nicholson, E. W. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. 1943. English translation of the 2nd ed. Vol. 15 of the Supplement series. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1981.

Payne, David F. Deuteronomy. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Rofe, Alexander. "The Monotheistic Argumentation in Deuteronomy IV 32-40: Contents, Composition and Text." Vetus Testamentum 35:4 (October 1985):434-45.

Rowley, Harold H. "Moses and the Decalogue." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester 34:1 (September 1951):81-118.

Rude, Terry. "The Theological Apex." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):48-53.

_____. "The Theology of Deuteronomy." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):62-72.

Ryrie, Charles C. "Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage." N.c.: By the Author, 1981.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

_____. "The Doctrine of Capital Punishment." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):211-17.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . .. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS (Spring 1984):73-82.

_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Scalise, Pamela J. "The Significance of Curses and Blessings." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):57-59.

Schulte, John Andrew. "Vows." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):48-51.

Schultz, Samuel J. Deuteronomy. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Seeligmann, I. L. "A Psalm from Pre-Regal Times." Vetus Testamentum 14 (1964):75-92.

Skehan, Patrick W. "The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (Deut. 32:1-43)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13:2 (April 1951):153-63.

Smedes, Lewis B. "An Introduction to Mission Beyond the Mission'." Theology, News and Notes 30:3 (October 1983):2-3.

Sprinkle, Joe M. "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.

Stevens, David E. "Does Deuteronomy 32:8 Refer to Sons of God' or Sons of Israel'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 154:614 (April-June 1997):131-41.

Steveson, Pete. "The Law: God's Standard for Life." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):10-15.

Strauss, Lehman. The Eleven Commandments. 2nd ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorical Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Terrien, Samuel. The Elusive Presence. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1974.

Townsend, Jeffrey L. "Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):320-37.

Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. "What Comes out of God's Mouth: Theological Wordplay in Deuteronomy 8." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (January 1985):55-57.

von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy. London: SCM, 1966.

Walton, John H. "Deuteronomy: An Exposition of the Spirit of the Law." Grace Theological Journal 8:2 (Fall 1987):213-25.

Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. 1692; reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

_____. "The date of Deuteronomy: linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism." Themelios 10:3 (April 1985):15-20; 11:1 (September 1985):15-18.

_____. "The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy." Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1969.

Wisdom, Thurman. "The Message of the Song of Moses." Biblical Viewpoint 19:2 (November 1985):54-61.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Wright, Chris. "Principles of Punishment in Deuteronomy." Third Way 6:7 (July-August 1983):15-16.

Wright, Christopher J. H. "What Happened Every Seven Years in Israel?" Evangelical Quarterly 56:3 (July 1984):129-38; 56:4 (October 1984):193-201.

Wright, David P. "Deuteronomy 21:1-9 as a Rite of Elimination." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49:3 (July 1987):387-403.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32." In Israel's Prophetic Heritage, pp. 26-67. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. London: SCM Press, 1962.

Wright, G. Ernest, and Reginald H Fuller. The Book of the Acts of God. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960.

Wright, Logan S. "MKR in 2 Kings XII 5-17 and Deuteronomy XVIII 8." Vetus Testamentum 39:4 (October 1989):438-48.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION.

THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY.

This Book is called Deuteronomy, which signifies a second law , because it repeats and inculcates the ordinances formerly given on Mount Sinai, with other precepts not expressed before. The Hebrews, from the first words in the Book, call it Elle Haddebarim . (Challoner) --- It may be divided into many discourses, which Moses made to the people during the last two months of his life. (Haydock) --- The first was delivered by him on the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year, since the deliverance of the Hebrews out of Egypt, and relates various particulars which had occurred to them. In chap. iv. 41, and following, and a supplement from the Book of Numbers is given to this discourse. Chap. v., a fresh exhortation to the people commences, which continues until chap. xxii., where the famous blessings and maledictions, from the mountains of Garizim and Hebal, are related. In the following chapters, Moses exhorts the people, in the most pathetic manner, to be faithful to the Lord, adding the strongest threats and promises to enforce their compliance; and having appointed Josue to succeed him, and repeated that beautiful canticle which God ordered them to write, (chap. xxxi. 19,) he gives the Book of Deuteronomy, to be kept with care, (ver. 9,) blesses the tribes like a good and tender father, and gives up his soul to God on Mount Nebo in the 120th year of his age. (Calmet) --- There can be no doubt but that Moses was the author of this book, as well as of the four preceding ones; though the last chapter may, perhaps, form a part of the Book of Josue, which formerly was written immediately after the works of Moses, without any such marks of distinction as we find at present. The whole Bible seemed to make but one verse. How easily, therefore, might the account of the death of Moses be taken in, as forming a part of the Pentateuch, when the different books came to be distinguished by separate titles! Such an insertion cannot hurt the general claim of Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch; or, if it should be thought to do so, no absolute proof can be brought to shew that he did not write this chapter also, by the spirit of prophecy. All the people spoke to Esdras, the scribe, to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded, to Israel. The whole nation of the Jews has all along maintained, that Moses wrote these books: and he himself repeatedly asserts that he was ordered to leave on record many things of importance. Hence both internal and external evidence concur to establish his title to them; and if we be not disposed to cavil with all other authors, and to deny that Demosthenes, for example, Cæsar, and others, have written the works which bear their names, we must confess that the Pentateuch is to be attributed to the Jewish legislator. Yet if this were a matter of doubt, the things contained in these books could not, on that account, be controverted. How many anonymous works have been published which are of unquestionable authority! Many of the books of Scripture are of this nature. But as we have every reason to believe, that they have come down to us without any material corruption, and were written by people of veracity, by divine inspiration, they deserve to be regarded as authentic records. This is true, whether we speak of the originals or of the versions authorized by the Church; though it should suffice to stop the mouths of infidels, if we can procure an authentic history of the Bible by the collation of the different copies which are extant. Thus, where the Hebrew editions appear to be incorrect, they may receive great light from the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch, and from the versions of the Septuagint, and of other respectable authors on the whole Bible. The variations, which we may discover, are not of such moment, but that, if the very worst copy were selected, we should find the same great outlines of Scripture history, the same precepts of faith and morality. The laws of Moses, which are scattered through his five books, may be seen all together in their natural order, collected by Cornelius a Lapide and Calmet. But the spirit of God was pleased to intersperse historical facts among them, which both shew the occasion on which they were given, and enable us to read them with greater pleasure and satisfaction. The four preceding books might be compared to the four Gospels; Deuteronomy represents the whole, (Ven. Bede) and may be styled a Diatessaron, as it recalls to our mind the great Creator of all things, who was about to fulfil the promises which he had made to the Patriarchs. Almost all those to whom Moses addresses himself, had been unborn or very young, when their parents received God's commands at Sinai, and wandered in the desert. He therefore gives them an account of what had happened during the last eventful period of forty years. He shews what had brought on so many disasters, and cautions his hearers, that if they imitate the perfidy of their fathers, as he foresees, with sorrow, that they will, (chap. xxxi.) they must expect to be treated with no less severity. This prediction we behold verified, at the present day, in the persons of the scattered remnants of Israel. How sublime! how terrifying are the truths which Moses enforces with so much earnestness! The same threats which he denounces against the perfidious Jews, regard us in some measure. If we feel not their effects at present, in being driven out from our country, we have more reason to fear lest we should be excluded from our heavenly inheritance, if we do not repent. (Haydock)

Gill: Deuteronomy (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DEUTERONOMY

This book is sometimes called "Elleh hadebarim", from the words with which it begins; and sometimes by the Jews "Mishneh Torah", the repetition of the law; and so in the Syriac version, with which agrees the Arabic title of it; and when the Greeks, and we after them, call it "Deuteronomy", it is not to be understood of a second, a new, or another law, but of the law formerly delivered, but now repeated, and also more largely explained; to which are likewise added several particular laws, instructions, and directions; all which were necessary, on account of the people of Israel, who were now a new generation, that either were not born, or not at an age to hear and understand the law when given on Mount Sinai; the men that heard it there being all dead, excepting a very few; and these people were also now about to enter into the land of Canaan, which they were to enjoy as long as they kept the law of God, and no longer, and therefore it was proper they should be reminded of it; and besides, Moses was now about to leave them, and having an hearty desire after their welfare, spends the little time he had to be with them, by inculcating into them and impressing on them the laws of God, and in opening and explaining them to them, and enforcing them on them, which were to be the rule of their obedience, and on which their civil happiness depended. And sometimes the Jews call this book "the book of reproofs", because there are in it several sharp reproofs of the people of Israel for their rebellion and disobedience; and so the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem begin it by calling it the words of reproof which Moses spake, &c. That this book was written by Moses there can be no doubt, from Deu 1:1, only the eight last verses, which give an account of his death, and of his character, were wrote by another hand, equally inspired by God, as either Eleazar the priest, as some, or Samuel the prophet, as others; or, as it is the more commonly received opinion of the Jews, Ezra; though it is highly probable they were wrote by Joshua his successor. This book was written and delivered by Moses, at certain times in the last month of his life, and towards the close of the fortieth year of the children of Israel's coming out of Egypt. And that it is of divine authority need not be questioned, when the several quotations out of it are observed, as made by the apostles of Christ, in Act 3:22, Heb 10:30 out of Deu 18:15 and by our Lord himself, Mat 18:16 from Deu 19:15. Yea, it is remarkable, that all the passages of Scripture produced by Christ, to repel the temptations of Satan, are all taken out of this book, Mat 4:7 compared with Deu 8:3, and the voice from heaven, directing the apostles to hearken to him, refers to a prophecy of him in Deu 18:15.

Gill: Deuteronomy 25 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DEUTERONOMY 25

Several laws are contained in this chapter, as concerning beating such whose crimes required it, Deu 25:1; of not muzzling the ox in treading out the corn, Deu 25:4; of marrying a deceased brother's wife, when there was no issue, and of the disgrace of such that refused it, Deu 25:5; of the punishment of an immodest woman, Deu 25:11; and against bad weights and measures, Deu 25:13; and for the utter destruction of Amalek, Deu 25:17.