Deuteronomychapter 25
19 verses · Moses, by tradition · 15th to 13th century BC · The Law
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
Introduction
Moses, by tradition, The Law, Deuteronomy Overview.
Moses closes the detailed statutes of his long address with this chapter, spoken on the plains of Moab. The laws that follow it are the ceremonies that seal the covenant. Its settings are the ones where a person can be wronged without much notice, a court, a threshing floor, a widow's house and a market stall. Listen for the reason given for a limit on punishment, and for the way the law follows abuse into each place. The chapter ends with a charge about an old enemy, and a reader should notice what the charge rests on.
Context
- Who
- A people who would soon buy, sell, farm and go to law among themselves
- What
- The last group of the detailed statutes, on the court, the ox, a dead brother's widow, a fight, honest weights and Amalek.
- Where
- The plains of Moab, legislating for the courts, threshing floors and markets of the land ahead
- When
- The fortieth year after the Exodus, about 1406 BC on the early date of the Exodus, a date reached from the evidence since the chapter names no year.
- Why
- To guard fairness at every scale of ordinary life and to charge Israel to remember what Amalek did.
Historical context
The chapter is Moses speaking in the fortieth year, closing the detailed statutes of the second address. The house reading dates it to about 1406 BC, stated as a reading rather than a settled date. The place is the plains of Moab, and the settings in view are a court, a threshing floor and a market in the land ahead. The occasion is the last group of statutes before the covenant is put to the people, ending with a standing charge about Amalek. A first hearer knew what a threshing floor was, a flat hard circle on a ridge where the wind blew, with grain separated by driving animals or a weighted sledge over it. Muzzling the ox at verse 4 meant the animal worked all day in food it could not touch. A first hearer knew what handing over a sandal meant, since it was a recognised way of transferring a property right, and the same gesture stands in Ruth 4:7-8. A first hearer also knew the market fraud at verses 13 and 14. A merchant carried stone weights in a pouch, and a bag with two sets held a heavy weight to buy with and a light one to sell by.
Significance
The chapter reads as a list of the places where a person can be quietly robbed, in court, at work, in a widow's household and at the scales. The covenant follows the abuse into each one, and the cap on the strokes is given a reason, that the man being beaten is still a brother. The levirate statute kept a dead man's name and land inside his family, and the refusal of the duty was answered with public shame rather than compulsion. The closing charge names what Amalek did, striking the stragglers at the back of the column when Israel was worn out, and it gives the reason that he did not fear God.
This chapter in Jewish lifeWhat this chapter is in Jewish life and reading.
What is done
Two ceremonies in this chapter were carried out in public, and the classical sources set them out step by step. The first is the lashing. The man is bent rather than standing or sitting (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:2:1, citing Makkot 22b). The stripes are divided by a rule the rabbis drew from the wording, two thirds on the back and one third on the chest (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:2:2, citing Sifrei Devarim 286:6 and Makkot 22b). A guilty verdict does not by itself bring lashes, since the text says if the man is worthy of them (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:1:2, citing Sifrei Devarim 286:4 and Makkot 13b).
The second is the loosing of the shoe, which releases a widow from levirate marriage. The parties go to the gate of the court, which Rashi takes from the Targum (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:7:1). The man makes his statement standing (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:8:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 290:3). The widow spits on the ground before him rather than at him (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:9:1, citing Yevamot 106b). Everyone present has a part. Rashi says it is the duty of all those standing there to call out the name the verse gives him (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:10:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 291:10 and Yevamot 106b).
The duty falls on brothers who shared a lifetime and who inherit from one another. That rules out a brother born after the husband's death, and a brother on the mother's side (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:5:1 and 25:5:2, citing Sifrei Devarim 288:2 and Yevamot 17b). The eldest brother is the one who acts (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:6:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 289:1 and Yevamot 24a).
How it is read
The muzzled ox of 25:4 is read as a general rule about any creature working with food. Rashi says the ox is named because Scripture speaks of what usually happens, while the law covers other cattle, beasts and fowl (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:4:1, citing Bava Metzia 88b). He works out which operations the rule covers by taking threshing as the pattern (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:4:2, citing Bava Metzia 89a and 90b). That excludes work on what does not grow from the ground, and work already finished for tithe.
A Christian reader meets the same verse in Paul's hands at 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18, applied to paying those who teach. The classical Jewish reading keeps the verse on the animal and the workman. From the mention of the ox Rashi draws that a man who stops a workman eating escapes the lashes the prohibition would otherwise carry.
The chapter's hardest verse is read away from its surface. Rashi holds that hewing off the hand at 25:12 means paying the value of the shame, measured by the standing of both parties (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:12:1, citing Bava Kamma 28a and 83b). He reaches that reading by comparing the phrase about the eye not pitying with the same phrase in the law of plotting witnesses, which carries monetary compensation (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:12:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 293:2). On the weights, Rashi reads the wording as a promise in both directions. A man who keeps false weights will be left with nothing, and a man who keeps just ones will have much (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:14:1 and 25:15:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 294:3). Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 25:16:1 stands in the corpus without an English text and is cited without quotation.
What the rabbis say
The teaching most worth carrying out of this chapter is about a single word. Rashi notices that the passage calls the man wicked while he is being judged, and calls him "thy brother" the moment the lashes are finished (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:3:2, citing Sifrei Devarim 286:14). He reads the ban on exceeding the count as the source of the wider prohibition on striking a man (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:3:1, citing Sanhedrin 86b and Ketubot 33a).
On Amalek the rabbis gave a parable. Rashi reads the word for how Amalek met Israel as cold rather than as chance. All the nations feared to fight Israel until this one showed the way. He compares it to a bath so hot that no creature would go down into it. A good for nothing sprang in, scalded himself, and made it seem cool to everyone watching (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:18:1, citing Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 9).
The rabbis also joined the weights to Amalek. A man who keeps false measures should expect the enemy to be provoked against him (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:17:1, citing Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 8). They read the wiping out of the memory as reaching so far that no beast could be described as having belonged to Amalek (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:19:1, citing Pesikta Zutrata). On the opening verse Rashi carries their warning that good never comes from a quarrel, with Lot's parting from Abraham as the example (Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:1:1 and 25:11:1, citing Sifrei Devarim 286:1 and 292:1).
The corpus carries more locators on this chapter, given for a reader to follow. Ein Yaakov, Makkot 1:1 stands at 25:1, Bava Kamma 83b:17 at 25:2. Bamidbar Rabbah 18:21 and Bamidbar Rabbah 5:4 stand at 25:3, Bava Kamma 54b:10 at 25:4. Avodah Zarah 5a:11 stands across 25:5 to 25:10, Bava Batra 12b:10 at 25:6. Arakhin 19b:10 and Aggadat Bereshit 13:3 stand at 25:9, Ein Yaakov, Yevamot 12:1 at 25:10. Bava Batra 89a:8 stands at 25:13, Bava Batra 88b:3 at 25:15. Eikhah Rabbah 3:23 stands across 25:17 to 25:19. Bereshit Rabbah 99:2 and Bamidbar Rabbah 13:3 stand at 25:18, Bava Batra 21b:1 at 25:19.
Sources: Rashi, Rashi on Deuteronomy 25:1 to 25:19, Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, public domain, 1929-1934; Ibn Ezra, Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 25:16:1, cited without text; The Sefaria corpus on disk, scripts/data/sources/sefaria/deuteronomy/25.json, fetched 2026-09-19, 2026.
The heads below are this chapter's scenes. The numbered points under each are its verses.
Forty stripes and no more
Deuteronomy 25:1-3
The court's work is put in one clause, that “the innocent may be acquitted and the guilty condemned”, and Proverbs 17:15 calls the reverse an abomination. The flogging happens before the judge and stops at forty, lest the man be “degraded in your sight”, and he is called a brother. Later Jewish practice stopped at thirty-nine to stay inside the limit, the count Paul gives at 2 Corinthians 11:24.
Deuteronomy 25:1
“Render it: (1) If there be a controversy between men, and they come to judgment, and the judges judge them, and justify the righteous and condemn the wicked (compare the marginal reference. and Exo 23:7; Pro 17:15); (2) then it shall be, etc. Deu 25:2 Scourging is named as a penalty in Lev 19:20. The beating here spoken of would be on the back with a rod or stick (compare Pro 10:13; Pro 19:29; Pro 26:3).”
The guilty man is beaten for crimes short of death, and Gill notes that the Mishnah gives a whole tractate, Makkot or stripes, to the crimes that deserved beating. The number of lashes followed the crime, as Jesus speaks of many lashes and few at Luke 12:47-48. No man's rank spared him.
Deuteronomy 25:2
“The judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face - This precept is literally followed in China; the culprit receives in the presence of the magistrate the punishment which the law directs to be inflicted. Thus then justice is done, for the magistrate sees that the letter of the law is duly fulfilled, and that the officers do not transgress it, either by indulgence on the one hand, or severity on the other. The culprit receives nothing more nor less than what justice requires.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
1 more voice on this verse
Deuteronomy 25:2
“And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten,.... There were four kinds of death criminals were put to by the Jews, stoning, strangling, burning, and slaying with the sword; and such crimes not as severe as these were punished with beating or scourging; and who they were that were worthy to be beaten is at large set forth in the Misnic treatise called Maccoth (x), or "stripes", which are too many to be transcribed.”
Forty is the full number of judgment, as in the forty days of rain and the forty years in the wilderness that Barnes cites. A brother beaten past forty lashes would be degraded like a beast, Wesley adds. Egypt's judges beat men until they were lamed or dead.
Deuteronomy 25:3
“The Jews to keep within the letter of the law fixed 39 stripes as the maximum (compare the marginal reference.). Forty signifies the full measure of judgment (compare Gen 7:12; Num 14:33-34); but the son of Israel was not to be lashed like a slave at the mercy of another. The judge was always to be present to see that the Law in this particular was not overpassed.”
The unmuzzled ox and the loosed sandal
A muzzle would keep the ox from eating the grain it treads loose. Paul quotes the line twice, at 1 Corinthians 9:9 to argue for a preacher's support and at 1 Timothy 5:18 beside the saying that the worker deserves his wages, calling both Scripture. The shortest verse in the chapter is the one the New Testament takes up most.
Deuteronomy 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.”
1 more voice on this verse
Deuteronomy 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Cross references
Deuteronomy 25:4
- Quoted in1 Corinthians 9:9“For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?”
'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn' ('it is written in the law of Moses')
- Quoted in1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker is worthy of his wages.”
'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox' ('the scripture saith')
Deuteronomy 25:5-10
The duty exists so that the dead man's “name will not be blotted out from Israel”, and Genesis 38 shows it already assumed in Judah's house. A brother who refuses is shamed rather than compelled, since the widow removes his sandal and spits in his face before the elders. Ruth 4:7-8 and the Sadducees' question at Matthew 22:24 both build on this law.
Deuteronomy 25:5
“But the Mosaic law rendered the custom obligatory (Mt 22:25) on younger brothers, or the nearest kinsman, to marry the widow (Ru 4:4), by associating the natural desire of perpetuating a brother's name with the preservation of property in the Hebrew families and tribes.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
3 more voices on this verse
Deuteronomy 25:5
“One - 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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Deuteronomy 25:5
“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.”
Deuteronomy 25:5
“The Sadducees put a case to our Saviour upon this law, with a design to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection by it ( Matt. xxii. 24 , &c.), 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.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Cross references
Deuteronomy 25:5
- Quoted inLuke 20:28“Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man is to marry his brother’s widow and raise up offspring for him.
levirate law (Sadducees, 'Moses wrote')
- Quoted inMark 12:19“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man is to marry his brother’s widow and raise up offspring for him.
levirate law (Sadducees, 'Moses wrote unto us')
- Quoted inMatthew 22:24“Teacher,” they said, “Moses declared that if a man dies without having children, his brother is to marry the widow and raise up offspring for him.
levirate law cited by the Sadducees ('Moses said')
Only the first son takes the dead brother's name, and Henry says he was entered in the genealogy of his tribe as the dead man's child. Wesley reads the law as keeping Israel's families from shrinking and its lines of descent clear, so the family of the Messiah could be known. The dead man's land stayed with his name.
The widow herself goes to the elders at the city gate, where the town's public business was done. Gill notes that before this law a brother had no lawful way to refuse, and Onan at Genesis 38:9 took the duty while defeating it. Henry adds that a marriage without affection cannot be forced.
Deuteronomy 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.”
The elders summon the brother and speak with him before anything is done, so the refusal has to be repeated before the court. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown describe the scene as a public assembly of the town's authorities. The shame of verse 9 follows only if he persists.
Deuteronomy 25:8
“In the case of Ruth we find this law executed ( Ruth iv. 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.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Wesley reads the sandal as the sign of a man's right, as at Psalm 60:8 where God tosses His sandal over Edom, so its removal gives up his claim to the widow and the inheritance. Jewish tradition, reported by Clarke, placed the spitting on the ground before his face. The magistrate kept the sandal as evidence.
Deuteronomy 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Going without a sandal marked captives and the lowest servants, as at Isaiah 20:2-4, and Wesley reads the name in that light. The brother who would not maintain his brother's line has his own house called by his refusal. Henry holds that he deserved it.
Shameful hands and honest weights
Deuteronomy 25:11-16
The cut hand of verse 12 is the only mutilation the law prescribes outside the like for like of Leviticus 24:19-20. The weights follow, a heavy one to buy with and a light one to sell by, and Leviticus 19:35-36, Amos 8:5 and Micah 6:10-11 condemn the same fraud. Honest scales carry the promise of long life in the land, as honouring parents does at Exodus 20:12.
Deuteronomy 25:11
“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.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
cut off her hand: The wife steps in to rescue her husband, and the law still cuts off her hand for the shame of the act. Barnes assumes a wilful act and a court's sentence. Henry reads it as the limit of the widow's boldness at the gate in verse 9.
Deuteronomy 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.”
Owning two differing weights is itself forbidden, and Henry reads that as removing the temptation before any sale. Proverbs 20:10 calls differing weights and measures alike detestable to the LORD. Proverbs 20:23 repeats it.
Deuteronomy 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. (y) אבן ואבן "lapis et lapis", Montanus, Vatablus, Piscator.”
2 more voices on this verse
Deuteronomy 25:13
“Thou shalt not have . . . divers weights--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].”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
Deuteronomy 25:13
“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.”
The Hebrew reads an ephah and an ephah, Clarke notes, the grain measure kept at home as the weights were kept in the bag. A large measure bought the neighbour's grain and a small one sold the owner's. Henry calls this cheating both ways.
Deuteronomy 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).”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
The weights must be accurate and honest in the bag and in the house alike, and Henry observes that a false weight or measure cheats in every sale. Barnes adds that John the Baptist gave the same honesty first place at Luke 3:13. The LORD asks one standard for buying and selling.
Deuteronomy 25:15
“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. xix. This law is enforced with two very good reasons:-- 1.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
The verse moves from the false weight to the man who keeps it, and the LORD names the man himself detestable. Proverbs 11:1 says the same of a false balance. Henry adds 1 Thessalonians 4:6, where the Lord avenges anyone who defrauds his brother.
Deuteronomy 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.”
1 more voice on this verse
Deuteronomy 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.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Blot out the memory of Amalek
Deuteronomy 25:17-19
Amalek struck the stragglers at the back when Israel was “tired and weary”, and the text adds that “they had no fear of God”. Exodus 17:14 had ordered the deed written down as a memorial, and here remembering and blotting out are commanded together. Saul is sent to carry it out at 1 Samuel 15 and spares Agag, and Esther 3:1 names Haman the Agagite generations later.
Deuteronomy 25:17
“Out of Egypt - 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.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
The word for attacked the stragglers means to cut off the tail, Calvin notes, the rear where the tired and weary walked. Amalek came from Esau at Genesis 36:12, so Amalek attacked its own kin. No war was declared, Henry adds.
Deuteronomy 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.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
The command waits until the LORD gives rest from the enemies around, and Henry counts nearly 400 years before Saul received it. The Simeonites struck the last of Amalek in Hezekiah's day, at 1 Chronicles 4:43. Calvin reads it as God's judgment on Amalek's sin.
Deuteronomy 25:19
“It was nearly 400 years after this that Saul was ordered to put this sentence in execution ( 1 Sam. xv. ), 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.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
How this psalm is built
The form: Law restated inside a spoken address, standing in the stipulations of a covenant treaty, as Kline classes it.
The patterns in this chapter
| Device | What it does | Where to see it |
|---|---|---|
| A stone and a stone, a measure and a measure | The Hebrew of verses 13 and 14 names the weights by repeating the noun, a stone and a stone, which is a heavy one to buy with and a light one to sell by. The doubling is how the text says the trader carries two of everything.This site's published exposition of Deuteronomy 25:11-16, the store's exposition_notes row on Deuteronomy 25:11-16, which reads the Hebrew doubling. | Deuteronomy 25:13, Deuteronomy 25:14 |
| Your eye shall not pity her | Verse 12 carries the formula this book keeps for cases it will not let a judge soften, and it stands at 13:8, 19:13 and 19:21 as well. The penalty of verse 12 is the one mutilation the law of Moses prescribes on its own account, beside the like for like of Leviticus 24:19-20.This site's published exposition of Deuteronomy 25:11-16, the store's exposition_notes row on Deuteronomy 25:11-16, which collects the four places. | Deuteronomy 25:12 |
| Four subjects with nothing in common but the gate | The chapter runs a beating before a judge, an ox at the threshing, a widow and her husband's brother, a fight between two men, the weights in a bag, and then Amalek. What holds them together is that each one is settled in public, before elders or a judge or the whole nation.Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, on Deuteronomy 25:1. | Deuteronomy 25:1, Deuteronomy 25:4, Deuteronomy 25:5, Deuteronomy 25:13, Deuteronomy 25:17 |
| The shoe loosed, and the name it leaves | A brother who refuses the duty is not compelled but shamed. The widow looses his shoe before the elders and spits, and his house carries the name of the shoe loosed from then on. The penalty is a name spoken about a household rather than anything a court takes from it.Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871, on Deuteronomy 25:9. | Deuteronomy 25:9, Deuteronomy 25:10 |
The New Testament's use
9 more paragraphs on the patterns
Paul quotes verse 4 twice. At 1 Corinthians 9:9 he asks whether God takes care for oxen and argues from the animal's mouth to a preacher's support. At 1 Timothy 5:18 he sets it beside the saying that the labourer is worthy of his reward and calls both of them scripture. The shortest verse in the chapter is the one the New Testament takes up most.
The Sadducees build their resurrection puzzle out of the levirate law at Matthew 22:24, taking seven brothers and one wife in turn.
Paul also stands under verses 1 to 3 himself. Later Jewish practice fixed the number of strokes at thirty-nine to stay inside the forty. That is the count he gives at 2 Corinthians 11:24, where he says five times he received forty stripes save one.
The historical value: the memorial carried through the Old Testament
Saul is sent to carry out verse 19 at 1 Samuel 15 and spares Agag. Esther 3:1 then brings in Haman the Agagite generations later, so the charge of this chapter runs forward into two later books.
What the law prescribes only once
The penalty at verse 12 is the one mutilation the law of Moses prescribes on its own account, beside the like for like of Leviticus 24:19-20. This site records that as a fact about the statute's place in the law rather than as a reading of its severity.
Where this chapter sits against the codes around it
This site's dossier reads Deuteronomy's case law beside Hammurabi's, whose penalties are graded by the social rank of the parties. The cap at verse 3 runs the other way, since the reason given for limiting the strokes is the standing of the man being beaten as a brother.
Keep studying
Sources for this chapter
The summary
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory; John Calvin, Commentaries; John Wesley, Notes on the Old Testament and Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary.
The context
John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament and Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible.
The form and classifications
Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, 1963; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972 and This site's published dossier on Deuteronomy, src/components/book/dossier-content/deuteronomy.ts, the entry on the Code of Hammurabi.
The exposition
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses; John Gill; John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament and Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible.