Deuteronomy 25:1-10 - Corporal Punishment, Animal Rights, and Levirate Marriage

     In this section, Moses addresses how corporal punishment was to be meted out by the courts (Deut 25:1-3), how fairness applied to work animals (Deut 25:4), and the specifics of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10).

Fair Punishment for Crime

     In ancient Israel, like any nation, there were certain crimes that warranted punishment. In this particular case, Moses set a limit on the number of blows a man could receive as punishment for his crime. Moses said, “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, ² then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt” (Deut 25:1-2).

     In Moses’ example, a dispute arose between two men who could not resolve their case by themselves and needed to bring it before a court. In this instance, the judges heard and ruled on the case and declared one righteous (צַדִּיק tsaddiq – righteous, just) and the other wicked (רָשָׁע rasha – wicked, criminal). This assumes God’s law had been given, that the judges objectively understood the law based on God’s intent, that they properly evaluated the case, and rendered a verdict that declared one to be justified and the other a criminal (Deut 25:1). All of this assumes God as the absolute moral Lawgiver who had revealed His will in objective language that could be understood and applied. If there is no absolute moral Lawgiver, then there are no absolute moral laws, and if there are no absolute moral laws, then right and wrong are reduced to arbitrary absolutes manufactured by those in power.

     Here, Moses mentions a case, which is vague and probably intended to leave its application open to multiple instances where the judgment might apply. If the wicked person had committed a crime worthy of a beating, it was to be executed right away in the presence of the judge, and the beating was to be in proportion to the crime. Furthermore, Moses set a limit on the number of lashes a criminal could receive, saying, “He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes” (Deut 25:3). The purpose of the limitation was to prevent the criminal from being degraded by excessive punishment. After all, he was still a person with intrinsic value.

     The ancient Law Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1750 B.C.) directed a man to be beaten 60 times, saying, “If a seignior has struck the cheek of a seignior who is superior to him, he shall be beaten sixty (times) with an oxtail whip in the assembly.”^[1] This shows that public beatings were a common practice in the ancient world. Peter Craigie states:

• "The substance of this legislation makes it very clear that corporal punishment was subject to many safeguards designed to avoid its abuse. Corporal punishment could be inflicted only after proper trial, and then it was to be carried out, within the specified limit, under the supervision of the judge. In this way, care was taken to see that the punishment was appropriate to the crime, on the one hand, and that the criminal was not grossly maltreated on the other hand; the guilty party was still your brother (v. 3b; a fellow Israelite) and was not to be publicly humiliated."^[2]

     In the New Testament we learn this particular law was reduced to thirty-nine blows, likely as a safeguard to prevent Jewish judges from going beyond what the law demanded. The apostle Paul had been wrongly beaten with a whip, saying, “Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes” (2 Cor 11:24), adding, “Three times I was beaten with rods” (2 Cor 11:25). Here was an abuse of this law by corrupt Israelites who sought to suppress Paul and his Christian ministry.

Fair Treatment of Work Animals

     Moses then addressed the just treatment of an ox while it is threshing wheat, saying, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deut 25:4). Moses’ point in adding this statement seems to expound on the previous verses. If God required just treatment of animals, how much more the just treatment of people. But it also demonstrated an economic principle that the animal that worked had the right to benefit from its labor. Daniel Block states:

• "Oxen used for threshing grain must not be muzzled. The ordinance assumes the ancient practice of threshing grain by having oxen trample the stalks or pull rock-studded sledges over the stalks spread out on the threshing floor. Greedy farmers muzzled their oxen or donkeys to prevent them from eating instead of working, or simply eating that which he hoped to harvest for himself (cf. Prov 14:4)."^[3]

Eugene Merrill adds:

• "The animal is nowhere “brother to the man” in Scripture but always sharply distinguished from humans. Nevertheless, the animal world, like all nature, is part of the divine creation entrusted to humankind as a stewardship. To abuse animal life is to fail to discharge that stewardship, and to fail to show mercy to God’s lowest creatures is to open the door to disregard of human life as well."^[4]

     Moses had previously addressed humanitarian treatment of animals that were used for work (Deut 5:14; 22:1-4, 6-7). Elsewhere, the Bible reveals a theology of animals that reveals God personally cares for the animals He’s created (Psa 104:10-29; 147:9; Matt 6:26), and He expects His people to do the same. Solomon states, “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel” (Prov 12:10).

     The apostle Paul used this verse in Deuteronomy as an analogy for compensating pastors for their work, saying, “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’, and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’” (1 Tim 5:17-18; cf., 1 Cor 9:9-10). In this way, believers help support their pastors for the work they do. Such support is honored by God.

The Law of Levirate Marriage

     Moses then issued the law of levirate marriage, saying, “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her” (Deut 25:5).

     Marrying a sister-in-law was forbidden under the Mosaic Law (Lev 18:16). However, Moses here gave an exception in which he directed the brother of the deceased to take his sister-in-law as his wife in order to bring forth a son (child) in his brother’s place. Apparently, this practice existed in ancient Israel (Gen 38:6-10), and Moses here codified it as law. The passage assumes 1) the living brother is not married (or at least willing to take a second wife), 2) that the brothers had lived on the same property together (perhaps sharing adjacent land), and 3) his sister-in-law had no children. Some see the heir as being a son only; however, Moses had previously ruled that a daughter could inherit the land (see Num 27:1-11). If the living brother took his sister-in-law to be his wife, then he 1) had a wife for life, 2) he would raise her firstborn under his brother’s name, and 3) the firstborn would inherit his brother’s property. This was a sacrifice that cost the brother financially, as he would need to raise his biological child until he was an adult, at which time the child would inherit the land. If the surviving brother refused to marry his sister-in-law, and she died childless, then his brother’s property would likely become his own. Earl Radmacher states:

• "The ancients greatly feared having no heirs to carry on the family’s name. Furthermore, a widow with no children to take care of her would quickly become a beggar. Taking a brother’s widow as a second wife protected her and preserved the name, memory, and interests of the deceased brother. The dead brother would be acknowledged as the legal father of the firstborn son of that marriage. This practice is called levirate marriage, from the Latin word for brother-in-law."^[5]

Thomas Constable adds:

• "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)."^[6]

     Moses gave the reason for the levirate marriage, saying, “It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel” (Deut 25:6). The firstborn child would be the biological offspring of the living brother, but would eventually become the legal heir of his deceased brother, thus perpetuating the dead brother’s name in Israel.

     However, though this was the honorable thing to do, it was not commanded of the living brother. Moses described a scenario in which the living brother refused to perform his levirate duty, saying, “But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.” (Deut 25:7). Though Moses does not give a reason why the brother refused to marry his sister-in-law, it could be the brother was motivated by greed to get his deceased brother’s property. If so, this would be a violation of the command, “You shall not covet” (Deut 5:21a). Daniel Block states:

• "The reason why a brother might refuse to marry the widow probably is to be found in a desire for personal gain. If he married the woman and there was a male child, that child, who would legally be the son of the deceased man, would inherit his “father’s” property. In the absence of such a child, however, the surviving brother might hope to inherit the property of his deceased brother (Num. 27:9; this would apply only if the widow had no children at all, male or female). If such were the motive, it deserved the reprobation of the community."^[7]

     However, the widow was not without recourse to persuade her brother-in-law to marry her and to give her a child, as she can take the matter to the elders of the gate of the city and plead her case. Daniel Block writes:

• "Moses authorizes the bereaved widow to present her complaint before the elders at the town gate (v. 7b). As a legally competent plaintiff, he invites her to present her case before the body responsible for applying Israel’s family laws. Having lost her husband, who would otherwise defend her interests, she may appeal to the elders to stand up for her. In addition to authorizing women to take their cases to the elders, he also advises the women on how to present their case."^[8]

     After the widow made her case, Moses directed the elders, saying, “Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house’” (Deut 25:8-9). Here was social pressure applied to the man to coerce him to perform his levirate duty, which was the selfless act of marrying his deceased brother’s widow and raising up a child to carry on his name. However, if the elders of the city could not persuade the man, then the widow was permitted to publicly humiliate him by taking his sandal, spitting in his face, and publicly declaring how the man had failed to behave honorably. Keil and Delitzsch state:

• "The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Ruth 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. … 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."^[9]

     Though we cannot be certain, it’s likely the taking of the sandal served as a receipt of the transaction in which the widow took possession of her deceased husband’s property, albeit without a husband or son to take ultimate inheritance of the land after she died. Daniel Block states:

• "The action represented a symbolic action of shame, but it also symbolized the transfer of the brother-in-law’s rights to the deceased’s widow and to that portion of the patrimonial estate that her husband would have received when it was divided. Since the woman would take the sandal home, it would function like a receipt, providing concrete proof of the present legal proceedings (cf. Ruth 4:7–8)."^[10]

     If this is the case, it could be that when the widow died, the land would return to the brother who refused to execute his levirate duties. However, until then, and throughout his life, the man would bear the public shame of his selfish act. So, Moses stated, “In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed’” (Deut 25:10). Here was a legacy of shame that carried on for many years, all because a man would not live honorably and selflessly as God directed. One action can have lasting consequences that can carry on for years. No doubt, his other relatives and children would be marked by the man’s selfish actions. We must realize that every moment is an opportunity for integrity.

The Example of Ruth

     Ruth was married to an Israelite man who died and left her a widow (Ruth 1:1-5). Ruth became a believer in Yahweh and committed herself to caring for Naomi, her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16-17). After going to Bethlehem with Naomi, Ruth happened to glean from the field of Boaz (providentially), who was a kinsman to her deceased husband (Ruth 2:20), and he was amenable to caring for her (Ruth 2:1-8). Under Naomi’s guidance, Ruth came to Boaz as her kinsman redeemer and sought levirate marriage (Ruth 3:1-11). However, being an honorable man who desired to live according to God’s law, Boaz informed Ruth there was another man who was a kinsman closer to her (Ruth 3:12), and Boaz was willing to approach the man concerning his duty (Ruth 3:13). When Boaz approached the man at the city gate, he explained the situation concerning their dead relative, Elimelech, and the need to purchase the land for Naomi, who needed the resources (Ruth 4:1-4). However, Boaz also informed his relative that he would need to take Ruth as his wife and to fulfill his levirate duty (Ruth 4:5). Upon hearing this from Boaz, the nearest kinsman declined the offer, fearing it would impact him in such a way so as to jeopardize his own inheritance (Ruth 4:6). Having executed a legal transaction (Ruth 4:7-8), Boaz agreed to purchase the land from Naomi and to take Ruth to be his wife in order to raise up a descendant to inherit the deceased relative’s land (Ruth 4:9-10). Boaz’ actions were acknowledged and praised by the elders and citizens who witnessed the transaction (Ruth 4:11-12). Boaz and Ruth married and bore children who eventually led to the birth of King David (Ruth 4:13-22), and Jesus the Messiah (Matt 1:5-6, 17).

     The marriage of Boaz to Ruth adhered to the law of the levirate marriage, in which Boaz would father a biological son that would eventually not be his son, but the son of his deceased relative, Elimelech. Gary North states:

• "Boaz became the biggest covenantal somebody in his generation only because he was willing to become a covenantal nobody in the extension of Elimelech’s line. The land that he presumably bought from Naomi became the family inheritance in another man’s line. Any improvements that he made in this land became another family line’s property. By abandoning his own name covenantally, he thereby became the greatest name of his generation, a name that is listed in both of the messianic genealogies in the New Testament (Matt 1:5; Luke 3:32)."[11]

 

 

^[1] James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with Supplement. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 175.

^[2] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 312.

^[3] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 580.

^[4] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 326.

^[5] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 259.

^[6] Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), Dt 25:5.

^[7] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 315.

^[8] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 583.

^[9] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 954–955.

^[10] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 583–584.

[11] Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy; Chapter 62, Levirate Marriage and Family Name, https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter62.htm.