DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

•

1 like•468 views

Henry, “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.”

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 When men have a dispute, they are to take it to
court and the judges will decide the case,
acquitting the innocent and condemning the
guilty.
1. Barnes, He quotes these verses to show how serious a matter this is with God. Pro
17:15 “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both
are abomination to the LORD.” Exo 23:7 “Keep thee far from a false matter; and the
innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.”
2. Clarke, “They shall justify the righteous - This is a very important passage, and
is a key to several others. The word צדק tsadak is used here precisely in the same sense in
which St. Paul sometimes uses the corresponding word δικαιοω, not to justify or make
just, but to acquit, declare innocent, to remit punishment, or give reasons why such a
one should not be punished; so here the magistrates הצדיקו hitsdiku, shall acquit, the
righteous - declare him innocent, because he is found to be righteous and not wicked: so
the Septuagint: καιδικαιωσουσιντονδικαιον they shall make righteous the righteous -
declare him free from blame, not liable to punishment, acquitted; using the same word
with St. Paul when he speaks of a sinner’s justification, i. e., his acquittance from blame
and punishment, because of the death of Christ in his stead.”
3. Gill, “If there be a controversy between men,.... Between two or more:
and they come unto judgment; into a court of judicature, bring their cause thither:
that the judges may judge them; who were never less than three; the great
sanhedrim at Jerusalem consisted of seventy one, the lesser court was of twenty three,
and the least of all three only:
then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked: acquit the one,
whose cause is good, and condemn the other to punishment, who is guilty of a crime,
and as that deserves; which is to do righteous judgment; the contrary to this is an
abomination to the Lord,

4. Henry, “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.”
5. PULPIT COMM, “This passage is an interesting illustration of the restraints
which the Law of Moses puts on the Hebrews, as to the semi-barbarous customs of
other nations. It is well known that punishment by bastinado was common among
the ancient Egyptians. It would be not unnaturally adopted by the Hebrews. There
are here three matters to be noticed.
1. Here is a principle to be recognized (Deuteronomy 25:1).
2. The punishment
3. The reason given is very impressive, lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee,
i.e. lest he should be so excessively punished as to be afterwards unfit for service,
and lest he should be the common butt of any one who chose to dishonor him.
Human nature is to be respected, even in carrying out legal sentences on crime.
Trapp says, The Turks, when cruelly lashed, are compelled to return to the judge
that commanded it, to kiss his hand, to give him thanks, and to pay the officer that
whipped them!
I. The sight of a human being coming under the sentence of criminal law is matter
for intense sadness.
II. The punishment to be inflicted on him should be such in matter and degree as to
assert right principle, but not such as needlessly to dishonor him. For—
III. Humanity, in spite of crime, has dignity about it still. Sin and the sinner are not
inseparable. God can kill one and save the other!
IV. With a view to a criminal's salvation, whatever of honor remains in his nature
should be carefully guarded and tenderly appealed to.
6. KD, “Corporal Punishment. - The rule respecting the corporal punishment to be

inflicted upon a guilty man is introduced in Deu_25:1 with the general law, that in a
dispute between two men the court was to give right to the man who was right, and to
pronounce the guilty man guilty (cf. Exo_22:8 and Exo_23:7).
7. Calvin, “Inasmuch as moderation and humanity are here enjoined, it is a
Supplement of the Sixth Commandment. The sum is, that, if any one is judicially
condemned to be beaten with stripes, the chastisement should not be excessive. The
question, however, is as to a punishment, which by lawyers is called a moderate
correction, (43) and which ought to be such, as that the body torn by the whip
should not be maimed or disfigured. Since, therefore, God has so far spared the
guilty, as to repress even just severity, much more would He have regard paid to
innocent blood; and since He prohibits the judge from using too great rigor, much
less will He tolerate the violence of a private individual, if he shall employ it against
his brother. But it was necessary that zeal should be thus restrained, because judges,
in other respects not unjust, are often as severe against lesser offenses (delicta) as
against crimes. An equal measure of punishment is not indeed prescribed, as if all
were to be beaten alike; it is only prohibited that the judges should order more than
forty stripes in all to be inflicted for an offense. Thus the culprits were beaten
deliberately, and not in such an indiscriminate manner as when it was not requisite
to count the stripes; besides, they were not so injured for the future as to be
deprived of the use of any of their limbs. With the same intent God would have the
judges themselves to be present, that by their authority they may prevent any
excess: and the reason is added, lest “thy brother should seem vile unto thee,”
because he had been beaten immoderately. This may be explained in two ways,
either, lest his body should be disfigured by the blows, and so he should be rendered
unsightly; or, lest, being stained for ever with ignominy and disgrace, he should be
discouraged in mind; for we know how grievous and bitter it is to be mocked and
insulted. A third sense, (44) which some prefer, is too far-fetched, viz., lest he should
die like some vile and contemptible beast; for God only provides that the wretched
man should be improved by his chastisement, and not that he should grow callous
from his infamy. As the Jews were always ostentatious of their zeal in trifling
matters, they invented a childish precaution, in order that they might more strictly
observe this law; for they were scrupulous in not proceeding to the fortieth stripe,
but, by deducting one, they sought after an empty reputation for clemency, as if they
were wiser than God Himself, and superior to Him in kindness. Into such folly do
men fall, when they dare out of their own heads to invent anything in opposition to
God’s word! This superstition already prevailed in Paul’s time, as we gather from
his words, where he reports that “five times he received forty stripes save one.” (2
Corinthians 11:24.)
8. PULPIT COMMENTARY, The first and second verses should be read as one
sentence, of which the protasis is in Deuteronomy 25:1 and the apodosis in Deuteronomy
25:2, thus: If there be a strife between men, and they come to judgment, and they (i.e. the
judges) give judgment on them, and justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked, then
it shall be, if the wicked deserve to be beaten (literally, be the son of blows), that the

judge, etc. It is assumed that the judges shall pronounce just judgment, and apportion to
the guilty party his due punishment; and then it is prescribed how that is to be inflicted. In
the presence of the judge the man was to be cast down, and the adjudged number of
blows were to be given him, not, however, exceeding forty, lest the man should be
rendered contemptible in the eyes of the people, as if he were a mere slave or brute. This
punishment was usually inflicted with a stick (Exodus 21:10; 2 Samuel 7:14, etc.), as is
still the case among the Arabs and Egyptians; sometimes also with thorns ( 8:7, 8:16);
sometimes with whips and scorpions, i.e. scourges of cord or leather armed with sharp
points or hard knots (1 Kings 12:11, 1 Kings 12:14). Though the culprit was laid on the
ground, it does not appear that the bastinado was used among the Jews as it is now among
the Arabs; the back and shoulders were the parts of the body on which the blows fell
(Proverbs 10:13; Proverbs 19:29; Proverbs 26:3; Isaiah 1:6). According to his fault, by a
certain number; literally, according to the requirement of his crime in number; i.e.
according as his crime deserved. The number was fixed at forty, probably because of the
symbolical significance of that number as a measure of completeness. The rabbins fixed
the number at thirty-nine, apparently in order that the danger of exceeding the number
prescribed by the Law should be diminished (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:24); but another reason
is assigned by Maimonides, viz. that, as the instrument of punishment was a scourge with
three tails, each stroke counted for three, and thus they could not give forty, but only
thirty-nine, unless they exceeded the forty (Maimon; 'In Sanhedrin,' 17.2).
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Deuteronomy 25:1-3
The bastinado.
Professor W. R. Smith regards this law of stripes as indicating a late date for
Deuteronomy. He argues from the customs of the free Bedouins. But it is perilous to
reason from the customs of the Bedouins to the punishments in vogue among a people
who had lived some centuries in Egypt, where, as is well-known, the bastinado was in
constant use. The sculptures at Beni-Hassan represent the very scene here described. We
learn—
I. THAT IT IS THE FUNCTION OF CIVIL MAGISTRATES TO PUNISH CRIME.
(Verses 1, 2.) They bear the sword for this purpose (Romans 14:4; 1 Peter 2:14). The
modern humanitarian spirit tends to exalt the reformatory and preventive ends of
punishment, at the expense of the retributive. That every effort should be put forth for the
reformation of the criminal which the case admits of, we cordially allow. But the danger
is, in these matters, that sentiment degenerate into sentimentalism. Crime deserves
punishment, and on that ground alone, were there no other, ought to receive it. No theory
can be satisfactory which loses sight of retribution, and makes reformation and prevention
the all in all.

II. THAT PENALTIES OUGHT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY SEVERE. (Verse 2.) To be
effective in early stages of civilization, penalties must be severe, prompt, and specific
enough to be vividly conceived (cf. H. Spencer's 'Essays:' 'Prison Ethics'). The progress of
society admits of the substitution of punishments appealing to a higher class of
sensibilities. But even these ought adequately to express the measure of the criminal's
desert. If Mr. Spencer were right, the slightest restraint compatible with the safety of the
community, combined with compulsory self-support, would be punishment sufficient for
the greatest crimes. The sense of justice in mankind rejects such ideas. Carlyle's teaching
in 'Model Prisons' is healthier than this.
III. THAT PENALTIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED. (Verse 3.) It is difficult to
believe that in our own country, at the beginning of this century, the theft of five shillings
from the person was a crime punishable by death. Yet the statute-book bristled with
enactments, of which, unhappily, this was not the worst. Such outrageous disproportion
between crime and punishment must have robbed the law's sentences of most of their
moral effect. Anomalies exist still, which it would be to any statesman's credit to
endeavor to remove.
IV. THAT PENALTIES SHOULD NOT BE UNDULY DEGRADING, (Vet, 3.) Lest
thy brother should seem vile unto thee. The effect of excessive severity is to harden,
degrade, dehumanize. It often drives the criminal to desperation. As a victim of the older
criminal code expressed it, A man's heart is taken from him, and there is given to him
the heart of a beast. The tendency in modern feeling is toward the abolition of corporal
punishments entirely, as degrading alike to him who administers them, and to those by
whom they are endured.
Observe:
1. The profound idea on which the law rested. The body, part of human nature, and
sharing its dignity as made in God's image.
2. The best laws may be unjustly and cruelly administered (2 Corinthians 11:24, 2
Corinthians 11:25).—J.O.
HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES
Deuteronomy 25:1-3
Earthly magistracy an argument for the heavenly.

It is not conceivable that God should have taken such pains, through Moses, to secure
pure administration of justice in earthly courts, unless he had established a like court of
judicature in heaven. So far as the will of God is embodied in the judicial procedure on
earth, it is copied from the pattern of heavenly things.
I. A JUDICIAL COURT IS CREATED FOR THE DISCRIMINATION OF HUMAN
CHARACTER. The purpose of all examination and testimony is to separate the evil from
the good—to bring to light the righteousness and the wickedness of men. Justice delights
more in vindicating and commending the righteous than in censuring and condemning the
wicked. Justice found a nobler occupation in marshalling Mordecai through the city, and
proclaiming his innocence, than in erecting the gallows for the execution of Haman.
Human judges, however, can discern only what is palpable and conspicuous. They have
not an organ of insight delicate enough to detect the lesser excellences and blemishes; nor
can they penetrate into the interior nature of man. These institutions are only the shadows
of heavenly things. But every man stands before the tribunal of a higher Judge, where not
only actions, but motives, intentions, and feelings, are examined and weighed. Here,
without the possibility of mistake, the righteous are justified, the wicked are condemned.
Discrimination is perfect: separation will be complete.
II. A JUDICIAL COURT IS ORDAINED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF EVIL DEEDS.
1. The true punishment is measured by the scale of demerit. It is enjoined to be
according to his fault. In God's sagacious judgment, every degree of blameworthiness is
noted. Nothing appertaining to moral conduct is beneath the notice of God's eye. We
value far too little moral qualities. As we grow like God, we shall gain in that penetrative
power which discerns the beauty of goodness and the blackness of iniquity.
2. Punishment is a loss of manliness. The judge shall cause him to lie down. His dignity
shall be prostrate. Sin robs us of manliness, but the loss does not come into public view
until punishment follows. To be righteous throughout is to be a man.
3. Punishment is to be public. The culprit is to be beaten before the judge's face. This
publicity is part of the penalty. It is summary—to be inflicted at once. And publicity is
also a safeguard against cruelty and against excess. So God invites public recognition and
public approval of his doings. The ransomed universe shall unite in the testimony, Just
and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
III. A JUDICIAL COURT REVEALS THE VALUE OF A HUMAN LIFE. The penalties
were to be moderate, lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee. The first ends of
punishment are the reformation and improvement of the offender. If it is possible to teach

the culprit the value of himself, and inspire him with a hatred of sin, we have done him
unspeakable good. We do not spend so much in cutting and polishing a common stone as
we do a ruby or a sapphire. Let our treatment of men be as if we esteemed them the
jewels of God.—D.
2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the
judge shall make him lie down and have him
flogged in his presence with the number of lashes
his crime deserves,
1. Barnes, “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).
2. Clarke, “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.
3. Gill, “ “If the accused were found guilty, judgment must be given against him: “Thou
shalt condThere 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. Maimonides says (y), that all negative precepts
in the law, for the breach of which men are guilty of cutting off, but not of death by the
sanhedrim, are to be beaten. They are in all twenty one, and so all deserving of death
by the hand of heaven; and they are eighteen, and all negative precepts of the law
broken, for which there is neither cutting off nor death by a court of judicature, for
these men are to be beaten, and they are one hundred and sixty eight; and all that are
to be beaten are found to be two hundred and seven:
that the judge shall cause him to lie down; which seems to be on the floor of the
court, since it was to be done immediately, and in the presence of the judge; and the
Jews gather (z) from hence, that he was to be beaten neither standing, nor sitting, but
bowed; that is, ye shall command or order him to lie down, or to fall upon the ground

with his face towards it:
and to be beaten before his face; in the presence of the judge, that the sentence
might be properly executed, neither exceeded not diminished; and indeed all the judges
were to be present, especially the bench of three; while he was beating, the chief of the
judges read the passage in Deu_28:58; and he that was next to him counted the strokes,
and the third at every blow said Smite (a): of the manner of beating or scourging; see Gill
on Mat_10:17,
according to his fault, by a certain number; as his crime and wickedness was
more or less heinous, more or fewer stripes were to be laid on him; as ten or twenty,
fewer or more, according to the nature of his offence, as Aben Ezra observes, only he
might not add above forty; though he says there are some who say that according to his
fault the stripes are larger or lesser, but all of them in number forty.
emn 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.
4. Henry, “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.
5. Jamison, “if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten — In judicial sentences,
which awarded punishment short of capital, scourging, like the Egyptian bastinado, was
the most common form in which they were executed. The Mosaic law, however,
introduced two important restrictions; namely: (1) The punishment should be inflicted
in presence of the judge instead of being inflicted in private by some heartless official;
and (2) The maximum amount of it should be limited to forty stripes, instead of being
awarded according to the arbitrary will or passion of the magistrate. The Egyptian, like
Turkish and Chinese rulers, often applied the stick till they caused death or lameness for
life. Of what the scourge consisted at first we are not informed; but in later times, when
the Jews were exceedingly scrupulous in adhering to the letter of the law and, for fear of
miscalculation, were desirous of keeping within the prescribed limit, it was formed of
three cords, terminating in leathern thongs, and thirteen strokes of this counted as

thirty-nine stripes (2Co_11:24).
6. KD, “If the guilty man was sentenced to stripes, he was to receive his punishment
in the presence of the judge, and not more than forty stripes, that he might not become
contemptible in the eyes of the people. ן וּת ִ הַ,sonofstripes,i.e.,amanliabletostripes,like
son(child)ofdeath,in1Sa_20:31.“Accordingtotheneedofhiscrimeinnumber ,”i.e.,asmany
stripesashiscrimedeserved.
7. DAVE GUZIK, “They justify the righteous and condemn the guilty: This is the simple
responsibility of all government and courts. As Paul describes 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. Maybe God does know best!
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. Yet, though sometimes a beating was the appropriate punishment, Forty blows may he give
him and no more. God 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 (an be beaten in his presence), so he could make sure
the punishment was not excessive.
i. In 2 Corinthians 11:24, Paul lists 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. Why
did they only beat him with thirty-nine blows if they could have used forty, according to
Deuteronomy 25:3? Because as a common practice, the Jews would only allow thirty-nine
blows to be administered, to both show mercy, and to scrupulously keep the law - one blow
was left off to protect against a miscount.
3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes.
If he is flogged more than that, your brother will
be degraded in your eyes.
1. Barnes, “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.
2. Clarke, “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed - According to God’s
institution a criminal may receive forty stripes; not one more! But is the institution from
above or not, that for any offense sentences a man to receive three hundred, yea, a
thousand stripes? What horrible brutality is this! and what a reproach to human nature,
and to the nation in which such shocking barbarities are exercised and tolerated! Most of
the inhabitants of Great Britain have heard of Lord Macartney’s embassy to the emperor
of China, and they have also heard of its complete failure; but they have not heard the
cause. It appears to have been partly occasioned by the following circumstance: A soldier
had been convicted of some petty traffic with one of the natives, and he was sentenced by
a court-martial to receive sixty lashes! Hear my author: -
“The soldiers were drawn up in form in the outer court of the place where we resided;
and the poor culprit, being fastened to one of the pillars of the great portico, received his
punishment without mitigation. The abhorrence excited in the breasts of the Chinese at
this cruel conduct, as it appeared to them, was demonstrably proved by their words and
looks. They expressed their astonishment that a people professing the mildest, the most
benevolent religion on earth, as they wished to have it believed, could be guilty of such
flagrant inattention to its merciful dictates. One of the principal Mandarins, who knew a
little English, expressed the general sentiment, Englishmen too much cruel, too much
bad.” - Accurate account of Lord Macartney’s Embassy to China, by an attendant on the
embassy, 12mo., 1797, p. 88.
The following is Mr. Ainsworth’s note on this verse: “This number forty the Scripture
uses sundry times in cases of humiliation, affliction, and punishment. As Moses twice
humbled himself in fasting and prayer forty days and forty nights, Deu_9:9, Deu_9:18.
Elijah fasted forty days, 1Ki_19:8; and our Savior, Mat_4:2. Forty years Israel was
afflicted in the wilderness for their sins, Num_14:33, Num_14:34. And forty years Egypt
was desolate for treacherous dealing with Israel, Eze_29:11-13. Forty days every woman
was in purification for her uncleanness for a man-child that she bare, and twice forty
days for a woman-child, Lev_12:4, Lev_12:5. Forty days and forty nights it rained at
Noah’s flood, Gen_7:12. Forty days did Ezekiel bear the iniquity of the house of Judah,
Eze_4:6. Jonah preached, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown, Jon_3:4.
Forty years’ space the Canaanites had to repent after Israel came out of Egypt, and
wandered so many years in the wilderness, Num_14:33. And thrice forty years the old
world had Noah preaching unto them repentance, Gen_6:3. It was forty days ere Christ
ascended into heaven after his resurrection, Act_1:3, Act_1:9. And forty years’ space he
gave unto the Jews, from the time that they killed him, before he destroyed their city and
temple by the Romans.
“By the Hebrews this law is expounded thus: How many stripes do they beat (an
offender) with? With forty, lacking one: as it is written, (Deu_25:2, Deu_25:3), by
number forty, that is, the number which is next to forty, Talmud Bab, in Maccoth, chap.
3. This their understanding is very ancient, for so they practiced in the apostles’ days; as
Paul testified: Of the Jews five times received I forty (stripes) save one; 2Co_11:24. But
the reason which they give is not solid; as when they say, If it had been written Forty In
Number, I would say it were full forty; but being written In Number Forty, it means the
number which reckons forty next after it, that is, thirty-nine. By this exposition they

holiness, but do not descend.''And yet Josephus represents it as a most infamous and
scandalous punishment, as one would think indeed it should be; his words are (e),
speaking of the laws concerning travellers being allowed to gather grapes, and pluck ears
of corn as they passed;he that does contrary to these laws receives forty stripes, save
one, with a public scourge; a free man undergoes this most filthy (or disgraceful)
punishment, because for the sake of gain he reproaches his dignity.''
4. Henry, “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.
5. KD, ““Forty shall ye beat him, and not add,” i.e., at most forty stripes, and not
more. The strokes were administered with a stick upon the back (Pro_10:13; Pro_19:29;
Pro_26:3, etc.). This was the Egyptian mode of whipping, as we may see depicted upon
the monuments, when the culprits lie flat upon the ground, and being held fast by the
hands and feet, receive their strokes in the presence of the judge (vid., Wilkinson, ii. p.
11, and Rosellini, ii. 3, p. 274, 78). The number forty was not to be exceeded, because a
larger number of strokes with a stick would not only endanger health and life, but
disgrace the man: “that thy brother do not become contemptible in thine eyes.” If he had
deserved a severer punishment, he was to be executed. In Turkey the punishments
inflicted are much more severe, viz., from fifty to a hundred lashes with a whip; and they
are at the same time inhuman (see v. Tornauw, Moslem. Recht, p. 234). The number,
forty, was probably chosen with reference to its symbolical significance, which it had
derived from Gen_7:12 onwards, as the full measure of judgment. The Rabbins fixed the
number at forty save one (vid., 2Co_11:24), from a scrupulous fear of transgressing the
letter of the law, in case a mistake should be made in the counting; yet they felt no
conscientious scruples about using a whip of twisted thongs instead of a stick

$6. RICH CATHERS, “The Jews actually would only give out 39 lashes, not because they were merciful, but in order to make sure they didn’t break the Law of Moses. Just in case someone miscounted, they were cautious not to break this law. Paul knew all about it. • (2 Cor 11:23-24 KJV) Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. {24} Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. 1. Barnes, “Compare the marginal references. In other kinds of labor the oxen were usually muzzled. When driven to and fro over the threshing-floor in order to stamp out the grain from the chaff, they were to be allowed to partake of the fruits of their labors. 1B. 1 Corinthians 9:9 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “a You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about boxen, is He? 1 Timothy 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “a You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “bThe laborer is worthy of his wages.” 2. Clarke, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, etc. - In Judea, as well as in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, they make use of beeves to tread out the corn; and Dr. Shaw tells us that the people of Barbary continue to tread out their corn after the custom of the East. Instead of beeves they frequently made use of mules and horses, by tying by the neck three or four in like manner together, and whipping them afterwards round about the nedders, as they call the treading floors, (the Libycae areae Hor), where the sheaves lie open and expanded, in the same manner as they are placed and prepared with us for threshing. This indeed is a much quicker way than ours, though less cleanly, for as it is performed in the open air, (Hos_13:3), upon any round level plot of ground, daubed over with cow’s dung to prevent as much as possible the earth, sand, or gravel from$

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.
3. Gill, “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.
4. Henry, “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.
5. Jamison, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn — 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, 1Ti_5:18).
6. KD, “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).
7. CALVI, 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, (1 Corinthians 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.”
(Proverbs 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.
8. GUZIK, “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. In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul applies 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 asks, Is it oxen
God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes?
9. PULPIT COMMETARY, The leaving the ox unmuzzled when treading out the
corn was in order that the animal might be free to eat of the grains which its labor
severed from the husks. This prohibition, therefore, was dictated by a regard to the
rights and claims of animals employed in labor; but there is involved in it the
general principle that all labor is to be duly requited, and hence it seems to have
passed into a proverb, and was applied to men as well as the lower animals (cf. 1
Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18). The use of oxen to tread out the corn and the rule
of leaving the animals so employed unmuzzled still prevail among the Arabs and
other Eastern peoples.
The use of this verse by the apostle has brought it out of an obscurity to which it
might have been relegated. It is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:10, and is there
applied by him as an illustration in the ancient Law of Moses of the same principle
which our Lord affirmed when he appointed that they that preach the gospel
should live of the gospel (see Matthew 10:9, Matthew 10:10). We can scarcely go so
far as John Calvin in reference to Paul's allusion to it. He says that Paul here says,
God does not care for oxen! Surely his meaning is simply that it was not merely
from his care for oxen that God commanded Moses to pen such a precept, but that
there was a common care of God for all his creatures, and that if he cared thus for
the less, it was very certain he would care even more for the greater. Labor,
moreover, is to be like all native growths—it is to have its seed within itself. All
who employ laborers are to see that their workmen are sufficiently well paid to
enable them to live by their labor. Any one desiring to develop this truth in relation
to spiritual toil would naturally rather take the ew Testament texts referred to
above. Keeping, therefore, simply to the earthly sphere, we remark:
1. o precept in this book which is connected with duty or character is too trivial to
be worthy of God.
2. An apparently small command may wrap up in it a great principle.
3. True benevolence will be kind and thoughtful to the humblest laborer even in
minute detail.
4. God does not allow any one selfishly to monopolize the fruits of another's labor
without giving the toiler adequate compensation for his toil.

5. The Great Defender of the rights of the working classes is—God!
6. It is a divinely appointed ordinance forever that the power of toil is to be a means
of self-support; that labor shall bring wealth to the laborer. Here is a blow struck at
slavery.
The apostle draws from this passage the general principle that the laborer is entitled
to eat of the fruits of his labor (1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Corinthians 9:10). His
application teaches us to look for similar general principles wrapped up in other
precepts of the Law. We learn—
I. AIMALS ARE ETITLED TO GEEROUS TREATMET. The ox that trod
out the corn was not to be muzzled. He was to be permitted to eat of the fruits of his
work. Kindness to animals is a duty:
1. Which man owes to the creatures. Severe moralists, arguing that animals, being
destitute of reason, are also destitute of rights, would bring all man's duties towards
them under the head of duties to himself (e.g. Kant). Alford thinks this to be implied
in Paul's language. But Paul's argument, if it is to be pressed in this connection,
rather implies the contrary. It recognizes in the ox, on the ground of its being a
laborer, a kind of right to be provided for. All that the apostle affirms is that the
precept had an end beyond the reference to oxen, that the care for oxen was
subordinate to the inculcation of a principle of general application. Our duty to the
creatures rests on the ground that they are sentient beings, capable of pain and
pleasure, and on the law of love, which requires us to diffuse happiness, and avoid
inflicting needless suffering.
2. Which man owes to himself. For this view, while not the whole of the truth, is an
important part of it. Leibnitz, in a small treatise written for the education of a
prince, advised that, during youth, he should not be permitted to torment or give
pain to any living thing, lest, by indulging the spirit of cruelty, he should contract a
want of feeling for his fellow-men. Alford says, The good done to a man's immortal
spirit by acts of humanity and justice infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort
of a brute which perishes.
II. THE HUMA LABORER IS ETITLED TO SHARE I THE PROFITS OF
HIS LABORS. Theoretically, he does so every time he is paid wages. In the
distribution of the fruits of production, the part which the laborer gets, we are told,
is wages, the share of the landowner is rent, that of the capitalist is interest, and the
Government takes taxes. Practically, however, wages are settled, not by abstract
rules of fairness, but by competition, which may press so hard upon the laborer as
(till things right themselves) to deprive him of his fair proportion of industrial

profits. The wage system is far from working satisfactorily. As society advances, it
appears to be leading to an increasing amount of bitterness and friction. Masters
and men represent opposing interests, and stand, as it were, at daggers drawn. It is
easier to see the evil than to devise a cure. Economists (Mill, Jevons, etc.) seem to
look mainly in the direction of some form of co-operation. Their schemes are
principally two;
1. Industrial co-operation.
2. Industrial partnerships—the system according to which a fixed proportion of
profits is assigned for division amongst the workmen engaged in production.
III. MIISTERS OF THE GOSPEL ARE ETITLED TO BE SUPPORTED BY
THEIR FLOCKS. This is the application made by Paul (1 Corinthians 9:1-27.; cf.
Matthew 10:10-12; Galatians 6:6). Christian ministers, laboring in spiritual things,
and by that work withdrawn from ordinary avocations, are to be cheerfully
supported. The text applies to this case more strictly than to the case of workmen
claiming to participate in profits. The workman claims but his own. The right of the
minister to support is of a different kind. He labors in things spiritual, but, it is to be
hoped, with a higher end than the mere obtaining of a livelihood. While, therefore,
his support is a duty, it is, like duties of benevolence generally, not one that can be
enforced by positive law. The right to support is a moral, not a legal one. It creates
an obligation, but, as moralists say, an indeterminate obligation. It is an obligation
to be freely accepted, and as freely discharged.—J.O.
10, F. B. MEYER, GOD taketh care of oxen, is Paul's comment on this text; and
so God did. These pages are filled with tokens of His thought--for the ass that might
not be overtaxed by being set to plough with an ox; for the ass or ox which were to
be helped up if they had sunk on the road overpowered with their burdens; or for
the bird sitting on her nest. Here the ox, as it went around the monotonous tread of
the mill, was to be allowed to take a chance mouthful of corn.
The care for dumb creatures is part of our religious duty. It is one of the elements of
religion to think for the dumb creatures, who are not able to speak for themselves,
but suffer so patiently the accumulated wrongs heaped on them by man. A
righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked
are cruel. Oh, when will the travail of creation cease! Man's sin has indeed worked
woe for the lower orders of creation.
The Apostle used this injunction to remind his converts of the necessity of caring for
their spiritual teachers. Some are called to plough, others to thresh; but he that
plougheth should plough in hope; and he that thresheth in hope should be partaker

of his hope (1 Cor. 9:10). They that serve the altar should live by the altar; and
those who proclaim the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
But there is sweet encouragement here for those who are anxious about their daily
bread. God takes care for oxen; will He not for you? Shall the oxen browse on the
wolds and pasture-lands, and be nourished to fatness, and will He leave to starve the
soul that really trusts and serves Him?
5 If brothers are living together and one of them
dies without a son, his widow must not marry
outside the family. Her husband's brother shall
take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a
brother-in-law to her.
1. Barnes, “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. ם יַ ֵ ,denom.from יָבָם ,abrother-in-law,husband'sbrother,lit.,toactthe
brother-in-law,i.e.,performthedutyofabrother-in-law,whichconsistedinhismarryinghis
deceasedbrother'swidow,andbegettingasonofchildrenwithher,thefirst-bornofwhomwas
“tostanduponthenameofhisdeceasedbrother,”i.e.,beplacedinthefamilyofthedeceased,
andberecognisedastheheirofhisproperty,thathisname(thenameofthemanwhohaddied
childless)mightnotbewipedoutorvanishoutofIsrael.Theprovision,“withouthavingason”
(ben),hasbeencorrectlyinterpretedbythelxx,Vulg.,Josephus (Ant.iv.8,23),andtheRabbins ,
assignifyingchildless(havingnoseed,Mat_22:25);forifthedeceasedhadsimplyadaughter,
accordingtoNum_27:4.,theperpetuationofhishouseandnamewastobeensuredthroughher.
Theobligationofabrother-in-law'smarriageonlyexistedincaseswherethebrothershadlived
together,i.e.,inoneandthesameplace,notnecessarilyinonehouseorwithacommondomestic
establishmentandhome(vid.,Gen_13:6;Gen_36:7).-Thiscustomofabrother-in-law's
(Levirate)marriage,whichismetwithindifferentnations,andasanoldtraditionalcustom

amongtheIsraelites(seeatGen_38:8.),haditsnaturalrootsinthedesireinherentinman,who
isformedforimmortality,andconnectedwiththehithertoundevelopedbeliefinaneternallife,
tosecureacontinuedpersonalexistenceforhimselfandimmoralityforhisname,throughthe
perpetuationofhisfamilyandinthelifeofthesonwhotookhisplace.Thisdesirewasnot
suppressedinIsraelbydivinerevelation,butratherincreased,inasmuchasthepromisesgivento
thepatriarchswereboundupwiththepreservationandpropagationoftheirseedandname.The
promisegiventoAbrahamforhisseedwouldofnecessitynotonlyraisethebegettingofchildren
inthereligiousviewsoftheIsraelitesintotheworkdesiredbyGodandwell-pleasingtoHim,but
wouldalsogivethissignificancetothetraditionalcustomofpreservingthenameandfamilyby
thesubstitutionofamarriageofduty,thattheywouldtherebysecuretothemselvesandtheir
familyashareintheblessingofpromise.Mosesthereforerecognisedthiscustomasperfectly
justifiable;buthesoughttorestrainitwithinsuchlimits,thatitshouldnotpresentany
impedimenttothesanctificationofmarriageaimedatbythelaw.Hetookawaythecompulsory
character,whichithithertopossessed,byprescribinginDeu_25:7.,thatifthesurvivingbrother
refusedtomarryhiswidowedsister-in-law,shewastobringthematterintothegatebeforethe
eldersofthetown(vid.,Deu_21:19),i.e.,beforethemagistrates;andifthebrother-in-lawstill
persistedinhisrefusal,shewastotakehisshoefromoffhisfootandspitinhisface,withthese
words:“Soletitbedonetothemanwhodoesnotbuilduphisbrother'shouse.”
ThetakingoffoftheshoewasanancientcustominIsrael,adopted,accordingtoRth_4:7,in
casesofredemptionandexchange,forthepurposeofconfirmingcommercialtransactions.The
usagearosefromthefact,thatwhenanyonetookpossessionoflandedpropertyhedidsoby
treadinguponthesoil,andassertinghisrightofpossessionbystandinguponitinhisshoes.In
thiswaythetakingoffoftheshoeandhandingittoanotherbecameasymboloftherenunciation
ofaman'spositionandproperty,-asymbolwhichwasalsocommonamongtheIndiansandthe
ancientGermans(seemyArchäologie,ii.p.66).Butthecustomwasanignominiousoneinsuch
acaseasthis,whentheshoewaspubliclytakenoffthefootofthebrother-in-lawbythewidow
whomherefusedtomarry.Hewasthusdeprivedofthepositionwhichheoughttohave
occupiedinrelationtoherandtohisdeceasedbrother,ortohispaternalhouse;andthedisgrace
involvedinthiswasstillfurtherheightenedbythefactthathissister-in-lawspatinhisface.This
isthemeaningofthewords(cf.Num_12:14),andnotmerelyspitonthegroundbeforehiseyes,
asSaalschütz andothersaswellastheTalmudists(tr.Jebam. xii.6)renderit,forthepurposeof
diminishingthedisgrace.“Builduphisbrother'shouse,”i.e.,laythefoundationofafamilyor
posterityforhim(cf.Gen_16:2).-Inadditiontothis,theunwillingbrother-in-lawwastoreceive
anameofridiculeinIsrael:“Houseoftheshoetakenoff ”( עַל חֲלוּץ ] הַ ַ ,takenoffastohisshoe;cf.

Ewald,§288,b.),i.e.,ofthebarefootedman,equivalentto“themiserablefellow;”foritwasonly
inmiserablecircumstancesthattheHebrewswentbarefoot(vid.,Isa_20:2-3;etedasafalse
freedomgrantedtothefemalesex”(Baumgarten),thelawisaddedimmediatelyafterwards,that
awomanwhosehusbandwasquarrellingwithanother,andwhoshouldcometohisassistanceby
layingholdofthesecretpartsofthemanwhowasstrikingherhusband,shouldhaveherhandcut
off.
1B.Matthew 22:24
24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘a If a man dies having no children, his brother as next
of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’
MMMMaaaarrrrkkkk11112:11119999
19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that a if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife
and leaves no child, his brother should 1 marry the wife and raise up children to his
brother.
LLLLuuuukkkkeeee20000:28888
28 and they questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that a if a man’s
brother dies, having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should 1 marry the wife
and raise up children to his brother.
2. CALVI, “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.
3. Gill, “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

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.
5. Jamison, “the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her
husband’s brother ... shall take her to him to wife — 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.

6. KD, “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. ם יַ ֵ ,denom.from יָבָם ,abrother-in-law,husband'sbrother,lit.,toactthebrother-in-law,
i.e.,performthedutyofabrother-in-law,whichconsistedinhismarryinghisdeceased
brother'swidow,andbegettingasonofchildrenwithher,thefirst-bornofwhomwas“tostand
uponthenameofhisdeceasedbrother,”i.e.,beplacedinthefamilyofthedeceased,andbe
recognisedastheheirofhisproperty,thathisname(thenameofthemanwhohaddied
childless)mightnotbewipedoutorvanishoutofIsrael.Theprovision,“withouthavingason”
(ben),hasbeencorrectlyinterpretedbythelxx,Vulg.,Josephus (Ant.iv.8,23),andtheRabbins ,
assignifyingchildless(havingnoseed,Mat_22:25);forifthedeceasedhadsimplyadaughter,
accordingtoNum_27:4.,theperpetuationofhishouseandnamewastobeensuredthroughher.
Theobligationofabrother-in-law'smarriageonlyexistedincaseswherethebrothershadlived
together,i.e.,inoneandthesameplace,notnecessarilyinonehouseorwithacommondomestic
establishmentandhome(vid.,Gen_13:6;Gen_36:7).-Thiscustomofabrother-in-law's
(Levirate)marriage,whichismetwithindifferentnations,andasanoldtraditionalcustom
amongtheIsraelites(seeatGen_38:8.),haditsnaturalrootsinthedesireinherentinman,who
isformedforimmortality,andconnectedwiththehithertoundevelopedbeliefinaneternallife,
tosecureacontinuedpersonalexistenceforhimselfandimmoralityforhisname,throughthe
perpetuationofhisfamilyandinthelifeofthesonwhotookhisplace.Thisdesirewasnot
suppressedinIsraelbydivinerevelation,butratherincreased,inasmuchasthepromisesgivento
thepatriarchswereboundupwiththepreservationandpropagationoftheirseedandname.The
promisegiventoAbrahamforhisseedwouldofnecessitynotonlyraisethebegettingofchildren
inthereligiousviewsoftheIsraelitesintotheworkdesiredbyGodandwell-pleasingtoHim,but
wouldalsogivethissignificancetothetraditionalcustomofpreservingthenameandfamilyby
thesubstitutionofamarriageofduty,thattheywouldtherebysecuretothemselvesandtheir
familyashareintheblessingofpromise.Mosesthereforerecognisedthiscustomasperfectly
justifiable;buthesoughttorestrainitwithinsuchlimits,thatitshouldnotpresentany
impedimenttothesanctificationofmarriageaimedatbythelaw.Hetookawaythecompulsory
character,whichithithertopossessed,byprescribinginDeu_25:7.,thatifthesurvivingbrother
refusedtomarryhiswidowedsister-in-law,shewastobringthematterintothegatebeforethe
eldersofthetown(vid.,Deu_21:19),i.e.,beforethemagistrates;andifthebrother-in-lawstill
persistedinhisrefusal,shewastotakehisshoefromoffhisfootandspitinhisface,withthese

words:“Soletitbedonetothemanwhodoesnotbuilduphisbrother'shouse.”
ThetakingoffoftheshoewasanancientcustominIsrael,adopted,accordingtoRth_4:7,in
casesofredemptionandexchange,forthepurposeofconfirmingcommercialtransactions.The
usagearosefromthefact,thatwhenanyonetookpossessionoflandedpropertyhedidsoby
treadinguponthesoil,andassertinghisrightofpossessionbystandinguponitinhisshoes.In
thiswaythetakingoffoftheshoeandhandingittoanotherbecameasymboloftherenunciation
ofaman'spositionandproperty,-asymbolwhichwasalsocommonamongtheIndiansandthe
ancientGermans(seemyArchäologie,ii.p.66).Butthecustomwasanignominiousoneinsuch
acaseasthis,whentheshoewaspubliclytakenoffthefootofthebrother-in-lawbythewidow
whomherefusedtomarry.Hewasthusdeprivedofthepositionwhichheoughttohave
occupiedinrelationtoherandtohisdeceasedbrother,ortohispaternalhouse;andthedisgrace
involvedinthiswasstillfurtherheightenedbythefactthathissister-in-lawspatinhisface.This
isthemeaningofthewords(cf.Num_12:14),andnotmerelyspitonthegroundbeforehiseyes,
asSaalschütz andothersaswellastheTalmudists(tr.Jebam. xii.6)renderit,forthepurposeof
diminishingthedisgrace.“Builduphisbrother'shouse,”i.e.,laythefoundationofafamilyor
posterityforhim(cf.Gen_16:2).-Inadditiontothis,theunwillingbrother-in-lawwastoreceive
anameofridiculeinIsrael:“Houseoftheshoetakenoff ”( עַל חֲלוּץ ] הַ ַ ,takenoffastohisshoe;cf.
Ewald,§288,b.),i.e.,ofthebarefootedman,equivalentto“themiserablefellow;”foritwasonly
inmiserablecircumstancesthattheHebrewswentbarefoot(vid.,Isa_20:2-3;etedasafalse
freedomgrantedtothefemalesex”(Baumgarten),thelawisaddedimmediatelyafterwards,that
awomanwhosehusbandwasquarrellingwithanother,andwhoshouldcometohisassistanceby
layingholdofthesecretpartsofthemanwhowasstrikingherhusband,shouldhaveherhandcut
off.
7. DAVE GUZIK, “(5-10) The marriage obligation of surviving brothers.
a. 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 is 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. 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: 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.
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 (2um 27:1-8). (Kalland)
c. If the brothers of the deceased man refused to take this responsibility, they were to be called
to open shame by the widow, as she declares he will not perform the duty of my husband's
brother. The shame was compounded as they would remove his sandal and the widow would
spit in his face.
8. HAWKER, I venture to think that this precept had in it somewhat more, than
merely what is contained in the obvious letter of it. If it be remembered, that the promise
of the woman’s seed, bruising the serpent’s head, had not in those early ages been so
clearly and fully revealed, in what stock or tribe the promised seed should spring, this
will serve to show, why it was that the whole nation of the Jews were so very anxious to
have children. And, therefore, the preserving the name in Israel was principally with this
view. But if we turn to the example of Boaz, in the case of Ruth, where this precept was
fully carried into effect, and read what the HOLY GHOST hath been pleased to record
concerning this thing: and if we do not forget, at the same time, that Boaz after the flesh,
was a progenitor of the LORD JESUS CHRIST; the subject will then open to our view in
all its glory. See Rth_3:9, to the end, and Ru 4 throughout. Blessed JESUS! thou art
indeed our near kinsman, our GOD-Redeemer! and thou hast not only married our
nature, but hast redeemed our mortgaged inheritance, when all other brethren were
incompetent to do it.
9. PULPIT COMMETARY, Levirate marriages. If a man who was married died
without issue, his surviving brother was required to marry the widow, so as to raise
up a successor to the deceased, who should be his heir. The brother who refused this
duty must be publicly disgraced. The design of this institution—which was not
originated by Moses, but came down from early times (Genesis 38:8), and is to be
found amongst ether nations than the Jews, and that even in the present day—was
to preserve a family from becoming extinct and to secure the property of a family
from passing into the hands of a stranger. The notion that the usage had its natural
roots in the desire inherent in man who is born for immortality, and connected with
the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal
existence for himself and immortality for his name through the perpetuation of his
family, and in the life of the son who took his place (Keil), seems wholly fanciful.
The levitate law.
At the root of this law, which obtained widely in the East, we find ideas and feelings
such as these—
I. RESPECT FOR THE HOOR OF THE FAMILY. In the East, as is well known,
childlessness is reckoned a calamity, almost a disgrace. Hence, as well as for other
reasons, the severity of the law in Deuteronomy 25:11. Hence also this custom of

marrying a brother's widow, in order to raise up seed to the brother. The motive is
plainly to avert disgrace from a brother's house, to wipe out his reproach, to hand
down his name in honor. We may respect the feeling while repudiating the form in
which it embodied itself. What touches the credit of our families ought to be felt to
concern ourselves. ot in the sense, certainly, of leading us to uphold that credit at
the expense of truth and of justice to others; but in the sense of doing everything we
can with a good conscience to maintain or redeem it.
II. DESIRE FOR A PERPETUATED AME. The men of the old dispensation, as
Matthew Henry says, not having so clear and certain a prospect of living themselves
on the other side death as we have now, were the more anxious to live in their
posterity. The principle is the same at bottom as that which leads us to wish for
personal immortality. What man desires is perpetuated existence, of which existence
in one's posterity is a kind of shadow, affording, in contemplation, a like shadow of
satisfaction to the mind. Positivism, in falling back from a personal to a corporate
immortality, is thus a movement in the wrong direction. The exchange it proposes is
the substance for the shadow. The desire to exist in the remembrance of posterity,
and to be well thought of by them, is, however, a legitimate principle of action. It
should operate in leading us to live good and useful lives, which is the secret of the
only lasting honor.
Only the actions of the just
Smell sweet and blossom in the dust.
III. THE DISGRACE ATTACHIG TO REFUSAL OF THE DUTIES IMPOSED
O US BY RELATIOSHIP TO THE DEAD. The disgrace in this case was
emphatically marked (verses 9, 10). The wishes of the dead should be very sacred to
us. The duties which spring from the bond of relationship, or from express request,
should, if possible, be faithfully discharged. Aiding in the settlement of affairs,
seeing provision made for a widow and children, accepting and fulfilling trusts,
etc.—J.O.
The rights of the firstborn.
We have already observed that the firstborn had a right to a double share of the
family inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17). We have before us another of his rights—a
seed was to be raised up unto him by his younger brothers, that his name should not
be put out in Israel. In a peasant proprietary such as existed in Palestine, we can
easily understand the importance of such a regulation. It was, moreover, esteemed a
most disgraceful act to refuse to raise up seed unto a dead brother, and the man
guilty of it had to suffer the indignity of being spat upon, and of having his shoe

contemptuously loosed.
ow, there can be no question that Jesus Christ occupies the position of Eldest
Brother in the family of God. ot only was it declared prophetically, I will make
him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth (Psalms 89:27), but he is
expressly called the Firstborn from the dead, the Firstborn among many
brethren, and the Firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:29;
Colossians 1:15). Undoubtedly, then, the rights guaranteed by Jewish Law to the
firstborn were intended to illustrate the rights of Jesus Christ.
I. JESUS CHRIST, LIKE THE DEAD FIRSTBOR, HAS TO DEPED O
OTHERS FOR A SPIRITUAL SEED. For in the nature of things it would have
been incongruous for Incarnate God to have entered into marriage with any
daughter of Adam, and to have become physically a father. His condescension was
surely great enough in becoming man at all, and it could not be expected that he
would enter into still closer relations to the race. one ever stood in the relation to
physical children of Jesus Christ; it would have made a confusion in the
contemplated spiritual relationship. Hence our Lord bad to look to others to raise
him up a seed.
II. IT LIFTS THE FAMILY RELATIO ITO THE HOLIEST LIGHT TO
THIK THAT WE MAY BE RAISIG UP A SPIRITUAL SEED FOR JESUS.
How holy all marriage relations become when it is felt to be possible to be providing
the Great Elder Brother with a spiritual seed! The children sent of God are then
regarded as Christ's; we dedicate them to him in prayer, and perhaps also in
baptism; we handle them and rear them as consecrated things; we train them up in
his nurture and admonition, and we feel honored in having any part in the
formation of the mighty family.
III. IT LIFTS THE PASTORAL AS WELL AS PARETAL RELATIO ITO
THE HOLIEST LIGHT. In Weemse's book on the 'Ceremonial Laws of Moses,'
where the privileges of the firstborn are so fully discussed, the application is
made to preachers rather than to parents. But we think that parents should feel the
elevation of spirit and life which the idea of raising up a seed for Jesus is fitted to
impart. And if parents should feel it, much more should pastors. We are meant to be
the spiritual fathers of men. We have exceptional advantages in prosecuting the
holy work. Oh, how glorious it is to think of adding by our faithful labors to the
great family of God! It is the ame and honor of Jesus which we should seek to
perpetuate by our pastoral labors. And so our aim is to have men born again
through the incorruptible seed, the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever
(1 Peter 1:23).

IV. AY REFUSAL TO RAISE UP A SEED FOR JESUS WILL BE VISITED BY
GOD I DUE SEASO WITH DIRE DISGRACE. For the spitting in the face and
the unloosing of the shoe are but symbols of the dire disgrace which shall overtake
all who will not engage in this holy work. It is a work for Church members as well
as for ministers. It lies as a responsibility upon every one that names the ame of
Jesus, and is a younger brother or sister in the family of God. Woe be to the person
who is indifferent to this!
And surely it should stimulate us to remember that the great ambition of Jesus is to
have many brethren. The mightier the multitude of redeemed ones the better. The
glory and honor of Immanuel shall thus be the more thoroughly secured. He has no
desire to be the solitary and selfish heir; but the whole plan of redemption is to have
as many as possible joint-heirs with him. As families and as Churches grow in
numbers and in loyalty to Jesus, his rights as Firstborn are being regarded and
secured (Romans 8:17).
We cannot picture the dire disgrace which the refusal to secure the rights of Jesus
Christ will entail. But the selfish souls will be the off scouring of all things; angels
will despise them as having highest honor within reach, and not having the heart to
accept it. Oh, let every one that has a word to speak and a kindness to perform in
the ame of Jesus, do it in the holy hope of increasing the spiritual seed of the great
and loving Elder Brother!—R.M.E.
10. PETER PETTIT, We should note the condition. The brothers must be
‘dwelling together’ (compare Psalms 133:1). That meant that they must be living on
the same ‘estate’, although not necessarily in the same house, with their lands jointly
worked as a family concern. They would have decided to keep the family estates
together rather than split them up when they inherited. It therefore suggested a
close family bond. Family feeling and family unity was especially strong among the
ancients. This condition indicated that the aim to keep the estates together and the
maintenance of the deceased brother’s name were central to the whole idea.
The idea then was that the surviving brother should take his brother’s wife as one of
his own wives in order to keep things in the family, although it may well be that she
had a more independent status and was not necessarily seen as a fully functioning
wife. Any land that she had brought with her would then remain in the family and
not go to ‘strangers’, as would any wealth that had passed to her. She should not
need to look for an outsider to marry, but would remain as a part of the family
circle. And the brother would have discreet sexual relations with her in order to
‘perform the duty of a husband’s brother’ towards her, so as to raise up a son for
his brother. This was the only case where a woman having sexual relations with her
husband’s brother was allowed. Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21 refer either to
where the brother was still living or to cases where the marriage was for the wrong

reasons. Intention was everything, and would be known to Yahweh. There was
nothing sordid or behind hand about it. The aim was totally meritorious, to preserve
the brother’s name.
umbers 27:8-11 may suggest that it may not have been seen as necessary when
there were daughters who could inherit, although as that would not ensure the
preservation of the deceased husband’s name, it was probably seen as second best.
That case may have in mind circumstances where a Levirate marriage was not
possible through a failure to be able to meet the conditions in one way or another
(through, for example, the refusal mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:7, or because the
family was no longer a close family unit, or because the wife was also dead). But
once they had inherited their father’s land the women were not then to marry
outside the tribe, taking the land with them (see umbers 36:1-9). This does bring
out how important it was seen to be at that time that land remained within the
family and within the tribe. And that the Levirate marriage would ensure.
11. I don't have a name for whoever wrote all of the following on this verse.
:5 and have no child
There was also a period of three months that followed the death of the
husband, during which everyone waited to see if the widow was
pregnant from her deceased husband. If she was already pregnant, then
this law wasn’t put into effect.
:5 her husband's brother shall go in unto her,
This section was known as the “Levirate” law, the duty of a man to raise
up a name for a deceased brother who had no offspring. The Latin
word levir means “brother-in-law”.
There were two unwritten rules here – first, it was the eldest brother who had the
duty to marry the widow, and second, only if the brother was unmarried. This is
how the Jews put this into practice.
This was a custom that actually predated Moses.
When Judah’s son Er died without having had a child with his wife Tamar, Judah
made Er’s brother Onan marry Tamar to produce offspring (Gen. 38:8).

(Gen 38:8 KJV) And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife,
and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
The Sadducees used this law to try and trap Jesus:
(Mat 22:23-33 KJV) The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say
that there is no resurrection, and asked him, {24} Saying, Master, Moses
said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and
raise up seed unto his brother. {25} Now there were with us seven
brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having
no issue, left his wife unto his brother: {26} Likewise the second also, and
the third, unto the seventh. {27} And last of all the woman died also. {28}
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for
they all had her.
They were building a situation based upon the Levirate law, where a brother dies and the wife is
taken by the next brother to fulfill his responsibilities. Then this brother dies, and the next brother
takes her, and so on until all brothers have died. The Sadducees don’t believe in a resurrection, and
they want to show how silly the whole idea is. They think they have a difficult situation for Jesus to
solve in asking whose wife she will be in this “resurrection”.
{29} Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the
scriptures, nor the power of God. {30} For in the resurrection they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
There is no marriage in heaven. We will not be married to our spouse in heaven.
For some, this is a relief. I hope for most of us, this is sad news. Jesus’ approach to their argument is simply to tell them that the gal won’t be
married to any of them in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven. You won’t stay married to your current spouse in heaven, you won’t be
marrying anybody else in heaven.
There are other belief systems that have ideas about heaven that differ from the Bible.
Islam
I don’t know if this qualifies as marriage in heaven, but in the Qur’an it is written,
“Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires; Gardens
enclosed, and grapevines, And voluptuous women of equal age” (78:31-33).
Mormonism
The Mormons have some unusual ideas about marriage and heaven. They have a ritual
that “seals” your marriage so you will be married in heaven, then you can have spirit
babies, and become a god over your own planet.
Former LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote that those who attain exaltation …inherit
in due course the fullness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all
power in heaven and on earth... (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257). The LDS Doctrine and

Covenants also teaches that then shall they be gods, because they have no
end…then shall they be gods, because they have all power… (DC 132:16-26). This
is the ultimate goal in Mormonism.
This sounds a little like what we read in Genesis 3:5 – your eyes shall be opened, and
ye shall be as gods, the only problem is, this is what Satan said to tempt Eve.
One of the requirements to reach this goal is what Mormons call celestial marriage.
Today celestial marriage is simply defined as a marriage in a Mormon temple
designed to last not just until death but throughout all eternity. Couples joined in
such marriages are considered sealed to each other. Their children afterward are
automatically sealed to them as well. This, they believe, ensures that their family
will continue in heaven eternally as a complete unit.
McConkie wrote, Celestial marriage is the gate to exaltation, and exaltation consists
in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Exaltation is…the kind of life which
God lives (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257). Celestial marriage is an absolute necessity to
reach this desired goal. Its importance in the place of salvation and exaltation cannot
be overestimated. The most important things that any member of (the LDS Church)
ever does in this world are: 1) To marry the right person, in the right place, by the
right authority; and 2) To keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and
perfect order of matrimony… (Mormon Doctrine pg. 118).
All Mormon men who desire Godhood are required to marry; if they do not, their
leaders have taught that their actions will be displeasing to God. For instance, 10th
LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said, Any young man who carelessly neglects
this great commandment to marry, or who does not marry because of a selfish desire
to avoid the responsibilities which married life will bring, is taking a course which is
displeasing in the sight of God…There can be no exaltation without it. If a man
refuses…he is taking a course which may bar him forever from (exaltation).
(Doctrines of Salvation 2:74).
The amazing thing is that this idea of being married in heaven clearly contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus rebuked the Sadducees because they
were making up a silly situation, assuming that there was marriage in heaven, when in fact there was no such thing.
{31} But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, {32} I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living. {33} And when the multitude heard this, they were
astonished at his doctrine.
Besides not believing in a resurrection, the Sadducees also believed that only the first five books of
Moses were inspired. They did not believe in the inspiration of the prophets, the Psalms, the history
books, etc. When Jesus quotes the Scriptures for the Sadducees (“I am the God of Abraham …”), He
quotes from Exodus 3:6, from one of the books that they accept. God had told Moses that He is
currently the God of Abraham. If there was no resurrection, God would have told Moses, “I WAS the
God of Abraham” since Abraham had long been dead at Moses’ time.
Jesus told the Sadducees that they were mistaken in their ideas because they were
unfamiliar with the Scriptures and unfamiliar with the true power of God.

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

More Related Content

What's hot

Jesus was the victorious one

Jesus was the victorious one

Jesus was the victorious oneGLENN PEASE

Leviticus 5 commentary

Leviticus 5 commentary

Leviticus 5 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Brochure - NEW REVELATION - Messages for the ones lost in the flesh - ed 1

Brochure - NEW REVELATION - Messages for the ones lost in the flesh - ed 1

Brochure - NEW REVELATION - Messages for the ones lost in the flesh - ed 1Simona P

A Short Study On Repentance

A Short Study On Repentance

A Short Study On RepentanceRachel Lansing

Psalm 94 commentary

Psalm 94 commentary

Psalm 94 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Subpoenaed - Acts 1:8

Subpoenaed - Acts 1:8

Subpoenaed - Acts 1:8Biblical Counseling Center of Bradenton, FL

Jesus was the gift of eternal life

Jesus was the gift of eternal life

Jesus was the gift of eternal lifeGLENN PEASE

Rc trench the rich fool

Rc trench the rich fool

Rc trench the rich foolKaturi Susmitha

I AM FORGIVEN - PTR. ALVIN GUTIERREZ - 6:30 PM EVENING SERVICE

I AM FORGIVEN - PTR. ALVIN GUTIERREZ - 6:30 PM EVENING SERVICE

I AM FORGIVEN - PTR. ALVIN GUTIERREZ - 6:30 PM EVENING SERVICEFaithworks Christian Church

032 as-sajdah ( the prostration )

032 as-sajdah ( the prostration )

032 as-sajdah ( the prostration )The Chosen One

Deuteronomy 24 commentary

Deuteronomy 24 commentary

Deuteronomy 24 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Jesus was the condemnation eliminator

Jesus was the condemnation eliminator

Jesus was the condemnation eliminatorGLENN PEASE

1 thessalonians 5 commentary

1 thessalonians 5 commentary

1 thessalonians 5 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Jesus was the basis for no condemnation

Jesus was the basis for no condemnation

Jesus was the basis for no condemnationGLENN PEASE

24th Sunday A, Mass Readings

24th Sunday A, Mass Readings

24th Sunday A, Mass ReadingschitoA

Jesus was sometimes insulting

Jesus was sometimes insulting

Jesus was sometimes insultingGLENN PEASE

What's hot (16)

Jesus was the victorious one

Jesus was the victorious one

Jesus was the victorious one

Leviticus 5 commentary

Leviticus 5 commentary

Leviticus 5 commentary

Brochure - NEW REVELATION - Messages for the ones lost in the flesh - ed 1

Brochure - NEW REVELATION - Messages for the ones lost in the flesh - ed 1

Brochure - NEW REVELATION - Messages for the ones lost in the flesh - ed 1

A Short Study On Repentance

A Short Study On Repentance

A Short Study On Repentance

Psalm 94 commentary

Psalm 94 commentary

Psalm 94 commentary

Subpoenaed - Acts 1:8

Subpoenaed - Acts 1:8

Subpoenaed - Acts 1:8

Jesus was the gift of eternal life

Jesus was the gift of eternal life

Jesus was the gift of eternal life

Rc trench the rich fool

Rc trench the rich fool

Rc trench the rich fool

I AM FORGIVEN - PTR. ALVIN GUTIERREZ - 6:30 PM EVENING SERVICE

I AM FORGIVEN - PTR. ALVIN GUTIERREZ - 6:30 PM EVENING SERVICE

I AM FORGIVEN - PTR. ALVIN GUTIERREZ - 6:30 PM EVENING SERVICE

032 as-sajdah ( the prostration )

032 as-sajdah ( the prostration )

032 as-sajdah ( the prostration )

Deuteronomy 24 commentary

Deuteronomy 24 commentary

Deuteronomy 24 commentary

Jesus was the condemnation eliminator

Jesus was the condemnation eliminator

Jesus was the condemnation eliminator

1 thessalonians 5 commentary

1 thessalonians 5 commentary

1 thessalonians 5 commentary

Jesus was the basis for no condemnation

Jesus was the basis for no condemnation

Jesus was the basis for no condemnation

24th Sunday A, Mass Readings

24th Sunday A, Mass Readings

24th Sunday A, Mass Readings

Jesus was sometimes insulting

Jesus was sometimes insulting

Jesus was sometimes insulting

Similar to DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

Jesus was god's agent for judging people's secrets

Jesus was god's agent for judging people's secrets

Jesus was god's agent for judging people's secretsGLENN PEASE

Jesus was to be the judge of men's secrets

Jesus was to be the judge of men's secrets

Jesus was to be the judge of men's secretsGLENN PEASE

Matthew 7 commentary

Matthew 7 commentary

Matthew 7 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Exodus 23 commentary

Exodus 23 commentary

Exodus 23 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Jesus was triumphant

Jesus was triumphant

Jesus was triumphantGLENN PEASE

Holy spirit about judgment

Holy spirit about judgment

Holy spirit about judgmentGLENN PEASE

Jesus was made judge of all

Jesus was made judge of all

Jesus was made judge of allGLENN PEASE

Jesus was angry at those who are angry

Jesus was angry at those who are angry

Jesus was angry at those who are angryGLENN PEASE

Jesus was interpreting radical suffering

Jesus was interpreting radical suffering

Jesus was interpreting radical sufferingGLENN PEASE

Feb 10 16 Grace Not Law

Feb 10 16 Grace Not Law

Feb 10 16 Grace Not LawRick Peterson

Romans 2 outlines

Romans 2 outlines

Romans 2 outlinesRivers of Joy Baptist Church, Pastor/Teacher Charles e Whisnant

Jesus was urging reconciliation

Jesus was urging reconciliation

Jesus was urging reconciliationGLENN PEASE

BiblicalEvangelismBooklet.pdf

BiblicalEvangelismBooklet.pdf

BiblicalEvangelismBooklet.pdfAl Bruce

Isaiah 10 commentary

Isaiah 10 commentary

Isaiah 10 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Jesus was the source of justification

Jesus was the source of justification

Jesus was the source of justificationGLENN PEASE

Joshua 20Gospel Baptist Tabernacle

Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

Matthew 5 38 48 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Gracious Jesus 11: Anger and Hurt

Gracious Jesus 11: Anger and Hurt

Gracious Jesus 11: Anger and HurtDr. Bella Pillai

Rc trench the unmerciful servant

Rc trench the unmerciful servant

Rc trench the unmerciful servantKaturi Susmitha

Leviticus 4 commentary

Leviticus 4 commentary

Leviticus 4 commentaryGLENN PEASE

Similar to DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET (20)

Jesus was god's agent for judging people's secrets

Jesus was god's agent for judging people's secrets

Jesus was god's agent for judging people's secrets

Jesus was to be the judge of men's secrets

Jesus was to be the judge of men's secrets

Jesus was to be the judge of men's secrets

Matthew 7 commentary

Matthew 7 commentary

Matthew 7 commentary

Exodus 23 commentary

Exodus 23 commentary

Exodus 23 commentary

Jesus was triumphant

Jesus was triumphant

Jesus was triumphant

Holy spirit about judgment

Holy spirit about judgment

Holy spirit about judgment

Jesus was made judge of all

Jesus was made judge of all

Jesus was made judge of all

Jesus was angry at those who are angry

Jesus was angry at those who are angry

Jesus was angry at those who are angry

Jesus was interpreting radical suffering

Jesus was interpreting radical suffering

Jesus was interpreting radical suffering

Feb 10 16 Grace Not Law

Feb 10 16 Grace Not Law

Feb 10 16 Grace Not Law

Romans 2 outlines

Romans 2 outlines

Romans 2 outlines

Jesus was urging reconciliation

Jesus was urging reconciliation

Jesus was urging reconciliation

BiblicalEvangelismBooklet.pdf

BiblicalEvangelismBooklet.pdf

BiblicalEvangelismBooklet.pdf

Isaiah 10 commentary

Isaiah 10 commentary

Isaiah 10 commentary

Jesus was the source of justification

Jesus was the source of justification

Jesus was the source of justification

Joshua 20

Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

Matthew 5 38 48 commentary

Gracious Jesus 11: Anger and Hurt

Gracious Jesus 11: Anger and Hurt

Gracious Jesus 11: Anger and Hurt

Rc trench the unmerciful servant

Rc trench the unmerciful servant

Rc trench the unmerciful servant

Leviticus 4 commentary

Leviticus 4 commentary

Leviticus 4 commentary

More from GLENN PEASE

Jesus was urging us to pray and never give up

Jesus was urging us to pray and never give up

Jesus was urging us to pray and never give upGLENN PEASE

Jesus was questioned about fasting

Jesus was questioned about fasting

Jesus was questioned about fastingGLENN PEASE

Jesus was scoffed at by the pharisees

Jesus was scoffed at by the pharisees

Jesus was scoffed at by the phariseesGLENN PEASE

Jesus was clear you cannot serve two masters

Jesus was clear you cannot serve two masters

Jesus was clear you cannot serve two mastersGLENN PEASE

Jesus was saying what the kingdom is like

Jesus was saying what the kingdom is like

Jesus was saying what the kingdom is likeGLENN PEASE

Jesus was telling a story of good fish and bad

Jesus was telling a story of good fish and bad

Jesus was telling a story of good fish and badGLENN PEASE

Jesus was comparing the kingdom of god to yeast

Jesus was comparing the kingdom of god to yeast

Jesus was comparing the kingdom of god to yeastGLENN PEASE

Jesus was telling a shocking parable

Jesus was telling a shocking parable

Jesus was telling a shocking parableGLENN PEASE

Jesus was telling the parable of the talents

Jesus was telling the parable of the talents

Jesus was telling the parable of the talentsGLENN PEASE

Jesus was explaining the parable of the sower

Jesus was explaining the parable of the sower

Jesus was explaining the parable of the sowerGLENN PEASE

Jesus was warning against covetousness

Jesus was warning against covetousness

Jesus was warning against covetousnessGLENN PEASE

Jesus was explaining the parable of the weeds

Jesus was explaining the parable of the weeds

Jesus was explaining the parable of the weedsGLENN PEASE

Jesus was radical

Jesus was radical

Jesus was radicalGLENN PEASE

Jesus was laughing

Jesus was laughing

Jesus was laughingGLENN PEASE

Jesus was and is our protector

Jesus was and is our protector

Jesus was and is our protectorGLENN PEASE

Jesus was not a self pleaser

Jesus was not a self pleaser

Jesus was not a self pleaserGLENN PEASE

Jesus was to be our clothing

Jesus was to be our clothing

Jesus was to be our clothingGLENN PEASE

Jesus was the source of unity

Jesus was the source of unity

Jesus was the source of unityGLENN PEASE

Jesus was love unending

Jesus was love unending

Jesus was love unendingGLENN PEASE

Jesus was our liberator

Jesus was our liberator

Jesus was our liberatorGLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Jesus was urging us to pray and never give up

Jesus was urging us to pray and never give up

Jesus was urging us to pray and never give up

Jesus was questioned about fasting

Jesus was questioned about fasting

Jesus was questioned about fasting

Jesus was scoffed at by the pharisees

Jesus was scoffed at by the pharisees

Jesus was scoffed at by the pharisees

Jesus was clear you cannot serve two masters

Jesus was clear you cannot serve two masters

Jesus was clear you cannot serve two masters

Jesus was saying what the kingdom is like

Jesus was saying what the kingdom is like

Jesus was saying what the kingdom is like

Jesus was telling a story of good fish and bad

Jesus was telling a story of good fish and bad

Jesus was telling a story of good fish and bad

Jesus was comparing the kingdom of god to yeast

Jesus was comparing the kingdom of god to yeast

Jesus was comparing the kingdom of god to yeast

Jesus was telling a shocking parable

Jesus was telling a shocking parable

Jesus was telling a shocking parable

Jesus was telling the parable of the talents

Jesus was telling the parable of the talents

Jesus was telling the parable of the talents

Jesus was explaining the parable of the sower

Jesus was explaining the parable of the sower

Jesus was explaining the parable of the sower

Jesus was warning against covetousness

Jesus was warning against covetousness

Jesus was warning against covetousness

Jesus was explaining the parable of the weeds

Jesus was explaining the parable of the weeds

Jesus was explaining the parable of the weeds

Jesus was radical

Jesus was radical

Jesus was radical

Jesus was laughing

Jesus was laughing

Jesus was laughing

Jesus was and is our protector

Jesus was and is our protector

Jesus was and is our protector

Jesus was not a self pleaser

Jesus was not a self pleaser

Jesus was not a self pleaser

Jesus was to be our clothing

Jesus was to be our clothing

Jesus was to be our clothing

Jesus was the source of unity

Jesus was the source of unity

Jesus was the source of unity

Jesus was love unending

Jesus was love unending

Jesus was love unending

Jesus was our liberator

Jesus was our liberator

Jesus was our liberator

Recently uploaded

Famous No1 Amil baba in UK/Australia, Canada, Germany Amil baba Kala jadu

Famous No1 Amil baba in UK/Australia, Canada, Germany Amil baba Kala jadu

Famous No1 Amil baba in UK/Australia, Canada, Germany Amil baba Kala jaduAmil Baba Naveed Bangali

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 4 28 24

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 4 28 24

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 4 28 24deerfootcoc

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Singar Nagar Lucknow best Night Fun service 👔

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Singar Nagar Lucknow best Night Fun service 👔

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Singar Nagar Lucknow best Night Fun service 👔anilsa9823

Lucknow 💋 (Call Girls) in Lucknow | Book 8923113531 Extreme Naughty Call Girl...

Lucknow 💋 (Call Girls) in Lucknow | Book 8923113531 Extreme Naughty Call Girl...

Lucknow 💋 (Call Girls) in Lucknow | Book 8923113531 Extreme Naughty Call Girl...anilsa9823

Elite Class ➥8448380779▻ Call Girls In Naraina Delhi NCR

Elite Class ➥8448380779▻ Call Girls In Naraina Delhi NCR

Elite Class ➥8448380779▻ Call Girls In Naraina Delhi NCRDelhi Call girls

St John's Church Parish Diary for May 2024

St John's Church Parish Diary for May 2024

St John's Church Parish Diary for May 2024Chris Lyne

Call Girls In CP 📱 9999965857 🤩 Delhi 🫦 HOT AND SEXY VVIP 🍎 SERVICE

Call Girls In CP 📱 9999965857 🤩 Delhi 🫦 HOT AND SEXY VVIP 🍎 SERVICE

Call Girls In CP 📱 9999965857 🤩 Delhi 🫦 HOT AND SEXY VVIP 🍎 SERVICECall Girls In Delhi Whatsup 9873940964 Enjoy Unlimited Pleasure

St. Louise de Marillac and Poor Children

St. Louise de Marillac and Poor Children

St. Louise de Marillac and Poor ChildrenFamvin: the Worldwide Vincentian Family

English - The Forgotten Books of Eden.pdf

English - The Forgotten Books of Eden.pdf

English - The Forgotten Books of Eden.pdfFilipino Tracts and Literature Society Inc.

call girls in rohini sector 22 Delhi 8264348440 ✅ call girls ❤️

call girls in rohini sector 22 Delhi 8264348440 ✅ call girls ❤️

call girls in rohini sector 22 Delhi 8264348440 ✅ call girls ❤️soniya singh

Lucknow 💋 best call girls in Lucknow ₹7.5k Pick Up & Drop With Cash Payment 8...

Lucknow 💋 best call girls in Lucknow ₹7.5k Pick Up & Drop With Cash Payment 8...

Lucknow 💋 best call girls in Lucknow ₹7.5k Pick Up & Drop With Cash Payment 8...anilsa9823

MEIDUNIDADE COM JESUS PALESTRA ESPIRITA1.pptx

MEIDUNIDADE COM JESUS PALESTRA ESPIRITA1.pptx

MEIDUNIDADE COM JESUS PALESTRA ESPIRITA1.pptxMneasEntidades

VIP mohali Call Girl 7001035870 Enjoy Call Girls With Our Escorts

VIP mohali Call Girl 7001035870 Enjoy Call Girls With Our Escorts

VIP mohali Call Girl 7001035870 Enjoy Call Girls With Our Escortssonatiwari757

(NISHA) Call Girls Sanath Nagar ✔️Just Call 7001035870✔️ HI-Fi Hyderabad Esco...

(NISHA) Call Girls Sanath Nagar ✔️Just Call 7001035870✔️ HI-Fi Hyderabad Esco...

(NISHA) Call Girls Sanath Nagar ✔️Just Call 7001035870✔️ HI-Fi Hyderabad Esco...Sanjna Singh

Pradeep Bhanot - Friend, Philosopher Guide And The Brand By Arjun JaniPradeep Bhanot

English - The Story of Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria.pdf

English - The Story of Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria.pdf

English - The Story of Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria.pdfFilipino Tracts and Literature Society Inc.

Top Astrologer in UK Best Vashikaran Specialist in England Amil baba Contact ...

Top Astrologer in UK Best Vashikaran Specialist in England Amil baba Contact ...

Top Astrologer in UK Best Vashikaran Specialist in England Amil baba Contact ...Amil Baba Naveed Bangali

Vashikaran Specialist in London Black Magic Removal No 1 Astrologer in UK

Vashikaran Specialist in London Black Magic Removal No 1 Astrologer in UK

Vashikaran Specialist in London Black Magic Removal No 1 Astrologer in UKAmil Baba Naveed Bangali

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Nishatganj Lucknow best Female service 🕶

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Nishatganj Lucknow best Female service 🕶

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Nishatganj Lucknow best Female service 🕶anilsa9823

Genesis 1:10 || Meditate the Scripture daily verse by verse

Genesis 1:10 || Meditate the Scripture daily verse by verse

Genesis 1:10 || Meditate the Scripture daily verse by versemaricelcanoynuay

Recently uploaded (20)

Famous No1 Amil baba in UK/Australia, Canada, Germany Amil baba Kala jadu

Famous No1 Amil baba in UK/Australia, Canada, Germany Amil baba Kala jadu

Famous No1 Amil baba in UK/Australia, Canada, Germany Amil baba Kala jadu

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 4 28 24

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 4 28 24

Deerfoot Church of Christ Bulletin 4 28 24

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Singar Nagar Lucknow best Night Fun service 👔

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Singar Nagar Lucknow best Night Fun service 👔

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Singar Nagar Lucknow best Night Fun service 👔

Lucknow 💋 (Call Girls) in Lucknow | Book 8923113531 Extreme Naughty Call Girl...

Lucknow 💋 (Call Girls) in Lucknow | Book 8923113531 Extreme Naughty Call Girl...

Lucknow 💋 (Call Girls) in Lucknow | Book 8923113531 Extreme Naughty Call Girl...

Elite Class ➥8448380779▻ Call Girls In Naraina Delhi NCR

Elite Class ➥8448380779▻ Call Girls In Naraina Delhi NCR

Elite Class ➥8448380779▻ Call Girls In Naraina Delhi NCR

St John's Church Parish Diary for May 2024

St John's Church Parish Diary for May 2024

St John's Church Parish Diary for May 2024

Call Girls In CP 📱 9999965857 🤩 Delhi 🫦 HOT AND SEXY VVIP 🍎 SERVICE

Call Girls In CP 📱 9999965857 🤩 Delhi 🫦 HOT AND SEXY VVIP 🍎 SERVICE

Call Girls In CP 📱 9999965857 🤩 Delhi 🫦 HOT AND SEXY VVIP 🍎 SERVICE

St. Louise de Marillac and Poor Children

St. Louise de Marillac and Poor Children

St. Louise de Marillac and Poor Children

English - The Forgotten Books of Eden.pdf

English - The Forgotten Books of Eden.pdf

English - The Forgotten Books of Eden.pdf

call girls in rohini sector 22 Delhi 8264348440 ✅ call girls ❤️

call girls in rohini sector 22 Delhi 8264348440 ✅ call girls ❤️

call girls in rohini sector 22 Delhi 8264348440 ✅ call girls ❤️

Lucknow 💋 best call girls in Lucknow ₹7.5k Pick Up & Drop With Cash Payment 8...

Lucknow 💋 best call girls in Lucknow ₹7.5k Pick Up & Drop With Cash Payment 8...

Lucknow 💋 best call girls in Lucknow ₹7.5k Pick Up & Drop With Cash Payment 8...

MEIDUNIDADE COM JESUS PALESTRA ESPIRITA1.pptx

MEIDUNIDADE COM JESUS PALESTRA ESPIRITA1.pptx

MEIDUNIDADE COM JESUS PALESTRA ESPIRITA1.pptx

VIP mohali Call Girl 7001035870 Enjoy Call Girls With Our Escorts

VIP mohali Call Girl 7001035870 Enjoy Call Girls With Our Escorts

VIP mohali Call Girl 7001035870 Enjoy Call Girls With Our Escorts

(NISHA) Call Girls Sanath Nagar ✔️Just Call 7001035870✔️ HI-Fi Hyderabad Esco...

(NISHA) Call Girls Sanath Nagar ✔️Just Call 7001035870✔️ HI-Fi Hyderabad Esco...

(NISHA) Call Girls Sanath Nagar ✔️Just Call 7001035870✔️ HI-Fi Hyderabad Esco...

Pradeep Bhanot - Friend, Philosopher Guide And The Brand By Arjun Jani

English - The Story of Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria.pdf

English - The Story of Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria.pdf

English - The Story of Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria.pdf

Top Astrologer in UK Best Vashikaran Specialist in England Amil baba Contact ...

Top Astrologer in UK Best Vashikaran Specialist in England Amil baba Contact ...

Top Astrologer in UK Best Vashikaran Specialist in England Amil baba Contact ...

Vashikaran Specialist in London Black Magic Removal No 1 Astrologer in UK

Vashikaran Specialist in London Black Magic Removal No 1 Astrologer in UK

Vashikaran Specialist in London Black Magic Removal No 1 Astrologer in UK

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Nishatganj Lucknow best Female service 🕶

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Nishatganj Lucknow best Female service 🕶

CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Nishatganj Lucknow best Female service 🕶

Genesis 1:10 || Meditate the Scripture daily verse by verse

Genesis 1:10 || Meditate the Scripture daily verse by verse

Genesis 1:10 || Meditate the Scripture daily verse by verse

DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EXPLAIS BIBLICAL PASSAGE O JUST PUNISHMET

1. DEUTEROOMY 25 COMMETARY EDITED BY GLE PEASE 1 When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. 1. Barnes, He quotes these verses to show how serious a matter this is with God. Pro 17:15 “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” Exo 23:7 “Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.” 2. Clarke, “They shall justify the righteous - This is a very important passage, and is a key to several others. The word צדק tsadak is used here precisely in the same sense in which St. Paul sometimes uses the corresponding word δικαιοω, not to justify or make just, but to acquit, declare innocent, to remit punishment, or give reasons why such a one should not be punished; so here the magistrates הצדיקו hitsdiku, shall acquit, the righteous - declare him innocent, because he is found to be righteous and not wicked: so the Septuagint: καιδικαιωσουσιντονδικαιον they shall make righteous the righteous - declare him free from blame, not liable to punishment, acquitted; using the same word with St. Paul when he speaks of a sinner’s justification, i. e., his acquittance from blame and punishment, because of the death of Christ in his stead.” 3. Gill, “If there be a controversy between men,.... Between two or more: and they come unto judgment; into a court of judicature, bring their cause thither: that the judges may judge them; who were never less than three; the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem consisted of seventy one, the lesser court was of twenty three, and the least of all three only: then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked: acquit the one, whose cause is good, and condemn the other to punishment, who is guilty of a crime, and as that deserves; which is to do righteous judgment; the contrary to this is an abomination to the Lord,

2. 4. Henry, “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.” 5. PULPIT COMM, “This passage is an interesting illustration of the restraints which the Law of Moses puts on the Hebrews, as to the semi-barbarous customs of other nations. It is well known that punishment by bastinado was common among the ancient Egyptians. It would be not unnaturally adopted by the Hebrews. There are here three matters to be noticed. 1. Here is a principle to be recognized (Deuteronomy 25:1). 2. The punishment 3. The reason given is very impressive, lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee, i.e. lest he should be so excessively punished as to be afterwards unfit for service, and lest he should be the common butt of any one who chose to dishonor him. Human nature is to be respected, even in carrying out legal sentences on crime. Trapp says, The Turks, when cruelly lashed, are compelled to return to the judge that commanded it, to kiss his hand, to give him thanks, and to pay the officer that whipped them! I. The sight of a human being coming under the sentence of criminal law is matter for intense sadness. II. The punishment to be inflicted on him should be such in matter and degree as to assert right principle, but not such as needlessly to dishonor him. For— III. Humanity, in spite of crime, has dignity about it still. Sin and the sinner are not inseparable. God can kill one and save the other! IV. With a view to a criminal's salvation, whatever of honor remains in his nature should be carefully guarded and tenderly appealed to. 6. KD, “Corporal Punishment. - The rule respecting the corporal punishment to be

3. inflicted upon a guilty man is introduced in Deu_25:1 with the general law, that in a dispute between two men the court was to give right to the man who was right, and to pronounce the guilty man guilty (cf. Exo_22:8 and Exo_23:7). 7. Calvin, “Inasmuch as moderation and humanity are here enjoined, it is a Supplement of the Sixth Commandment. The sum is, that, if any one is judicially condemned to be beaten with stripes, the chastisement should not be excessive. The question, however, is as to a punishment, which by lawyers is called a moderate correction, (43) and which ought to be such, as that the body torn by the whip should not be maimed or disfigured. Since, therefore, God has so far spared the guilty, as to repress even just severity, much more would He have regard paid to innocent blood; and since He prohibits the judge from using too great rigor, much less will He tolerate the violence of a private individual, if he shall employ it against his brother. But it was necessary that zeal should be thus restrained, because judges, in other respects not unjust, are often as severe against lesser offenses (delicta) as against crimes. An equal measure of punishment is not indeed prescribed, as if all were to be beaten alike; it is only prohibited that the judges should order more than forty stripes in all to be inflicted for an offense. Thus the culprits were beaten deliberately, and not in such an indiscriminate manner as when it was not requisite to count the stripes; besides, they were not so injured for the future as to be deprived of the use of any of their limbs. With the same intent God would have the judges themselves to be present, that by their authority they may prevent any excess: and the reason is added, lest “thy brother should seem vile unto thee,” because he had been beaten immoderately. This may be explained in two ways, either, lest his body should be disfigured by the blows, and so he should be rendered unsightly; or, lest, being stained for ever with ignominy and disgrace, he should be discouraged in mind; for we know how grievous and bitter it is to be mocked and insulted. A third sense, (44) which some prefer, is too far-fetched, viz., lest he should die like some vile and contemptible beast; for God only provides that the wretched man should be improved by his chastisement, and not that he should grow callous from his infamy. As the Jews were always ostentatious of their zeal in trifling matters, they invented a childish precaution, in order that they might more strictly observe this law; for they were scrupulous in not proceeding to the fortieth stripe, but, by deducting one, they sought after an empty reputation for clemency, as if they were wiser than God Himself, and superior to Him in kindness. Into such folly do men fall, when they dare out of their own heads to invent anything in opposition to God’s word! This superstition already prevailed in Paul’s time, as we gather from his words, where he reports that “five times he received forty stripes save one.” (2 Corinthians 11:24.) 8. PULPIT COMMENTARY, The first and second verses should be read as one sentence, of which the protasis is in Deuteronomy 25:1 and the apodosis in Deuteronomy 25:2, thus: If there be a strife between men, and they come to judgment, and they (i.e. the judges) give judgment on them, and justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked, then it shall be, if the wicked deserve to be beaten (literally, be the son of blows), that the

4. judge, etc. It is assumed that the judges shall pronounce just judgment, and apportion to the guilty party his due punishment; and then it is prescribed how that is to be inflicted. In the presence of the judge the man was to be cast down, and the adjudged number of blows were to be given him, not, however, exceeding forty, lest the man should be rendered contemptible in the eyes of the people, as if he were a mere slave or brute. This punishment was usually inflicted with a stick (Exodus 21:10; 2 Samuel 7:14, etc.), as is still the case among the Arabs and Egyptians; sometimes also with thorns ( 8:7, 8:16); sometimes with whips and scorpions, i.e. scourges of cord or leather armed with sharp points or hard knots (1 Kings 12:11, 1 Kings 12:14). Though the culprit was laid on the ground, it does not appear that the bastinado was used among the Jews as it is now among the Arabs; the back and shoulders were the parts of the body on which the blows fell (Proverbs 10:13; Proverbs 19:29; Proverbs 26:3; Isaiah 1:6). According to his fault, by a certain number; literally, according to the requirement of his crime in number; i.e. according as his crime deserved. The number was fixed at forty, probably because of the symbolical significance of that number as a measure of completeness. The rabbins fixed the number at thirty-nine, apparently in order that the danger of exceeding the number prescribed by the Law should be diminished (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:24); but another reason is assigned by Maimonides, viz. that, as the instrument of punishment was a scourge with three tails, each stroke counted for three, and thus they could not give forty, but only thirty-nine, unless they exceeded the forty (Maimon; 'In Sanhedrin,' 17.2). HOMILIES BY J. ORR Deuteronomy 25:1-3 The bastinado. Professor W. R. Smith regards this law of stripes as indicating a late date for Deuteronomy. He argues from the customs of the free Bedouins. But it is perilous to reason from the customs of the Bedouins to the punishments in vogue among a people who had lived some centuries in Egypt, where, as is well-known, the bastinado was in constant use. The sculptures at Beni-Hassan represent the very scene here described. We learn— I. THAT IT IS THE FUNCTION OF CIVIL MAGISTRATES TO PUNISH CRIME. (Verses 1, 2.) They bear the sword for this purpose (Romans 14:4; 1 Peter 2:14). The modern humanitarian spirit tends to exalt the reformatory and preventive ends of punishment, at the expense of the retributive. That every effort should be put forth for the reformation of the criminal which the case admits of, we cordially allow. But the danger is, in these matters, that sentiment degenerate into sentimentalism. Crime deserves punishment, and on that ground alone, were there no other, ought to receive it. No theory can be satisfactory which loses sight of retribution, and makes reformation and prevention the all in all.

5. II. THAT PENALTIES OUGHT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY SEVERE. (Verse 2.) To be effective in early stages of civilization, penalties must be severe, prompt, and specific enough to be vividly conceived (cf. H. Spencer's 'Essays:' 'Prison Ethics'). The progress of society admits of the substitution of punishments appealing to a higher class of sensibilities. But even these ought adequately to express the measure of the criminal's desert. If Mr. Spencer were right, the slightest restraint compatible with the safety of the community, combined with compulsory self-support, would be punishment sufficient for the greatest crimes. The sense of justice in mankind rejects such ideas. Carlyle's teaching in 'Model Prisons' is healthier than this. III. THAT PENALTIES OUGHT TO BE MEASURED. (Verse 3.) It is difficult to believe that in our own country, at the beginning of this century, the theft of five shillings from the person was a crime punishable by death. Yet the statute-book bristled with enactments, of which, unhappily, this was not the worst. Such outrageous disproportion between crime and punishment must have robbed the law's sentences of most of their moral effect. Anomalies exist still, which it would be to any statesman's credit to endeavor to remove. IV. THAT PENALTIES SHOULD NOT BE UNDULY DEGRADING, (Vet, 3.) Lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee. The effect of excessive severity is to harden, degrade, dehumanize. It often drives the criminal to desperation. As a victim of the older criminal code expressed it, A man's heart is taken from him, and there is given to him the heart of a beast. The tendency in modern feeling is toward the abolition of corporal punishments entirely, as degrading alike to him who administers them, and to those by whom they are endured. Observe: 1. The profound idea on which the law rested. The body, part of human nature, and sharing its dignity as made in God's image. 2. The best laws may be unjustly and cruelly administered (2 Corinthians 11:24, 2 Corinthians 11:25).—J.O. HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES Deuteronomy 25:1-3 Earthly magistracy an argument for the heavenly.

6. It is not conceivable that God should have taken such pains, through Moses, to secure pure administration of justice in earthly courts, unless he had established a like court of judicature in heaven. So far as the will of God is embodied in the judicial procedure on earth, it is copied from the pattern of heavenly things. I. A JUDICIAL COURT IS CREATED FOR THE DISCRIMINATION OF HUMAN CHARACTER. The purpose of all examination and testimony is to separate the evil from the good—to bring to light the righteousness and the wickedness of men. Justice delights more in vindicating and commending the righteous than in censuring and condemning the wicked. Justice found a nobler occupation in marshalling Mordecai through the city, and proclaiming his innocence, than in erecting the gallows for the execution of Haman. Human judges, however, can discern only what is palpable and conspicuous. They have not an organ of insight delicate enough to detect the lesser excellences and blemishes; nor can they penetrate into the interior nature of man. These institutions are only the shadows of heavenly things. But every man stands before the tribunal of a higher Judge, where not only actions, but motives, intentions, and feelings, are examined and weighed. Here, without the possibility of mistake, the righteous are justified, the wicked are condemned. Discrimination is perfect: separation will be complete. II. A JUDICIAL COURT IS ORDAINED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF EVIL DEEDS. 1. The true punishment is measured by the scale of demerit. It is enjoined to be according to his fault. In God's sagacious judgment, every degree of blameworthiness is noted. Nothing appertaining to moral conduct is beneath the notice of God's eye. We value far too little moral qualities. As we grow like God, we shall gain in that penetrative power which discerns the beauty of goodness and the blackness of iniquity. 2. Punishment is a loss of manliness. The judge shall cause him to lie down. His dignity shall be prostrate. Sin robs us of manliness, but the loss does not come into public view until punishment follows. To be righteous throughout is to be a man. 3. Punishment is to be public. The culprit is to be beaten before the judge's face. This publicity is part of the penalty. It is summary—to be inflicted at once. And publicity is also a safeguard against cruelty and against excess. So God invites public recognition and public approval of his doings. The ransomed universe shall unite in the testimony, Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. III. A JUDICIAL COURT REVEALS THE VALUE OF A HUMAN LIFE. The penalties were to be moderate, lest thy brother should seem vile unto thee. The first ends of punishment are the reformation and improvement of the offender. If it is possible to teach

7. the culprit the value of himself, and inspire him with a hatred of sin, we have done him unspeakable good. We do not spend so much in cutting and polishing a common stone as we do a ruby or a sapphire. Let our treatment of men be as if we esteemed them the jewels of God.—D. 2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, 1. Barnes, “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). 2. Clarke, “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. 3. Gill, “ “If the accused were found guilty, judgment must be given against him: “Thou shalt condThere 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. Maimonides says (y), that all negative precepts in the law, for the breach of which men are guilty of cutting off, but not of death by the sanhedrim, are to be beaten. They are in all twenty one, and so all deserving of death by the hand of heaven; and they are eighteen, and all negative precepts of the law broken, for which there is neither cutting off nor death by a court of judicature, for these men are to be beaten, and they are one hundred and sixty eight; and all that are to be beaten are found to be two hundred and seven: that the judge shall cause him to lie down; which seems to be on the floor of the court, since it was to be done immediately, and in the presence of the judge; and the Jews gather (z) from hence, that he was to be beaten neither standing, nor sitting, but bowed; that is, ye shall command or order him to lie down, or to fall upon the ground

8. with his face towards it: and to be beaten before his face; in the presence of the judge, that the sentence might be properly executed, neither exceeded not diminished; and indeed all the judges were to be present, especially the bench of three; while he was beating, the chief of the judges read the passage in Deu_28:58; and he that was next to him counted the strokes, and the third at every blow said Smite (a): of the manner of beating or scourging; see Gill on Mat_10:17, according to his fault, by a certain number; as his crime and wickedness was more or less heinous, more or fewer stripes were to be laid on him; as ten or twenty, fewer or more, according to the nature of his offence, as Aben Ezra observes, only he might not add above forty; though he says there are some who say that according to his fault the stripes are larger or lesser, but all of them in number forty. emn 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. 4. Henry, “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. 5. Jamison, “if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten — In judicial sentences, which awarded punishment short of capital, scourging, like the Egyptian bastinado, was the most common form in which they were executed. The Mosaic law, however, introduced two important restrictions; namely: (1) The punishment should be inflicted in presence of the judge instead of being inflicted in private by some heartless official; and (2) The maximum amount of it should be limited to forty stripes, instead of being awarded according to the arbitrary will or passion of the magistrate. The Egyptian, like Turkish and Chinese rulers, often applied the stick till they caused death or lameness for life. Of what the scourge consisted at first we are not informed; but in later times, when the Jews were exceedingly scrupulous in adhering to the letter of the law and, for fear of miscalculation, were desirous of keeping within the prescribed limit, it was formed of three cords, terminating in leathern thongs, and thirteen strokes of this counted as

9. thirty-nine stripes (2Co_11:24). 6. KD, “If the guilty man was sentenced to stripes, he was to receive his punishment in the presence of the judge, and not more than forty stripes, that he might not become contemptible in the eyes of the people. ן וּת ִ הַ,sonofstripes,i.e.,amanliabletostripes,like son(child)ofdeath,in1Sa_20:31.“Accordingtotheneedofhiscrimeinnumber ,”i.e.,asmany stripesashiscrimedeserved. 7. DAVE GUZIK, “They justify the righteous and condemn the guilty: This is the simple responsibility of all government and courts. As Paul describes 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. Maybe God does know best! 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. Yet, though sometimes a beating was the appropriate punishment, Forty blows may he give him and no more. God 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 (an be beaten in his presence), so he could make sure the punishment was not excessive. i. In 2 Corinthians 11:24, Paul lists 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. Why did they only beat him with thirty-nine blows if they could have used forty, according to Deuteronomy 25:3? Because as a common practice, the Jews would only allow thirty-nine blows to be administered, to both show mercy, and to scrupulously keep the law - one blow was left off to protect against a miscount. 3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes. 1. Barnes, “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

10. 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. 2. Clarke, “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed - According to God’s institution a criminal may receive forty stripes; not one more! But is the institution from above or not, that for any offense sentences a man to receive three hundred, yea, a thousand stripes? What horrible brutality is this! and what a reproach to human nature, and to the nation in which such shocking barbarities are exercised and tolerated! Most of the inhabitants of Great Britain have heard of Lord Macartney’s embassy to the emperor of China, and they have also heard of its complete failure; but they have not heard the cause. It appears to have been partly occasioned by the following circumstance: A soldier had been convicted of some petty traffic with one of the natives, and he was sentenced by a court-martial to receive sixty lashes! Hear my author: - “The soldiers were drawn up in form in the outer court of the place where we resided; and the poor culprit, being fastened to one of the pillars of the great portico, received his punishment without mitigation. The abhorrence excited in the breasts of the Chinese at this cruel conduct, as it appeared to them, was demonstrably proved by their words and looks. They expressed their astonishment that a people professing the mildest, the most benevolent religion on earth, as they wished to have it believed, could be guilty of such flagrant inattention to its merciful dictates. One of the principal Mandarins, who knew a little English, expressed the general sentiment, Englishmen too much cruel, too much bad.” - Accurate account of Lord Macartney’s Embassy to China, by an attendant on the embassy, 12mo., 1797, p. 88. The following is Mr. Ainsworth’s note on this verse: “This number forty the Scripture uses sundry times in cases of humiliation, affliction, and punishment. As Moses twice humbled himself in fasting and prayer forty days and forty nights, Deu_9:9, Deu_9:18. Elijah fasted forty days, 1Ki_19:8; and our Savior, Mat_4:2. Forty years Israel was afflicted in the wilderness for their sins, Num_14:33, Num_14:34. And forty years Egypt was desolate for treacherous dealing with Israel, Eze_29:11-13. Forty days every woman was in purification for her uncleanness for a man-child that she bare, and twice forty days for a woman-child, Lev_12:4, Lev_12:5. Forty days and forty nights it rained at Noah’s flood, Gen_7:12. Forty days did Ezekiel bear the iniquity of the house of Judah, Eze_4:6. Jonah preached, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown, Jon_3:4. Forty years’ space the Canaanites had to repent after Israel came out of Egypt, and wandered so many years in the wilderness, Num_14:33. And thrice forty years the old world had Noah preaching unto them repentance, Gen_6:3. It was forty days ere Christ ascended into heaven after his resurrection, Act_1:3, Act_1:9. And forty years’ space he gave unto the Jews, from the time that they killed him, before he destroyed their city and temple by the Romans. “By the Hebrews this law is expounded thus: How many stripes do they beat (an offender) with? With forty, lacking one: as it is written, (Deu_25:2, Deu_25:3), by number forty, that is, the number which is next to forty, Talmud Bab, in Maccoth, chap. 3. This their understanding is very ancient, for so they practiced in the apostles’ days; as Paul testified: Of the Jews five times received I forty (stripes) save one; 2Co_11:24. But the reason which they give is not solid; as when they say, If it had been written Forty In Number, I would say it were full forty; but being written In Number Forty, it means the number which reckons forty next after it, that is, thirty-nine. By this exposition they

11. confound the verses and take away the distinction. I rather think this custom was taken up by reason of the manner of their beating forespoken of, which was with a scourge that had three cords, so that every stroke was counted for three stripes, and then they could not give even forty, but either thirty-nine or forty-two, which was above the number set of God. And hereof they write thus: When they judge (or condemn) a sinner to so many (stripes) as he can bear, they judge not but by strokes that are fit to be trebled [that is, to give three stripes to one stroke, by reason of the three cords]. If they judge that he can bear twenty, they do not say he shall be beaten with one and twenty, to the end that they may treble the stripes, but they give him eighteen - Maimon in Sanhedrin, chap. xvii., sec. 2. Thus he that was able to bear twenty stripes, had but eighteen: the executioner smote him but six times, for if he had smitten him the seventh they were counted one and twenty stripes, which was above the number adjudged: so he that was adjudged to forty was smitten thirteen times, which being counted one for three, make thirty-nine. And so R. Bechaios, writing hereof, says, The strokes are trebled; that is, every one is three, and three times thirteen are nine and thirty.” Thy brother be vile, or be contemptible - By this God teaches us to hate and despise the sin, not the sinner, who is by this chastisement to be amended; as the power which the Lord hath given is to edification, not to destruction, 2Co_13:10. 3. Gill, “ And that this number might not be exceeded, it is ordered by the Jewish canons that only thirty nine should be given; for it is asked (b),with how many stripes do they beat him? with forty, save one, as it is said, in number forty that is, in the number which is next to forty;''this they make out by joining the last word of Deu_25:2 with the first of this; and that this was an ancient sense of the law, and custom upon it, appears by the execution of it on the Apostle Paul; who was not indulged, but suffered the extremity of it as it was then understood; see Gill on 2Co_11:24; moreover, that they might not exceed this number, they used to make a scourge of three lashes, so that every strike they fetched with it was reckoned for three stripes, and thirteen of them made thirty nine; wherefore if they added another stroke, it would have exceeded the number of stripes by two: lest if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes; they might diminish them, if a man was weak, and not able to bear them; but they might not exceed them, if a man was as strong as Samson, as Maimonides (c) says: then thy brother should seem vile unto thee; as if he was a beast, and not a man, and much less a brother. The Targum of Jonathan is,lest he be in danger, and thy brother be vile;''lest he be in danger of his life, and become vile, as a dead carcass; so the apostle calls dead bodies vile bodies, Phi_3:21; or in danger of being maimed, and becoming lame or deformed, and so be contemptible: and this punishment of beating with the Jews was not reckoned, according to their writers, reproachful, and as fixing a brand of infamy upon a person; but they were still reckoned brethren, and restored to their former dignities, whatsoever they possessed; so Maimonides (d) says,whoever commits a crime, and is beaten, he returns to his dignity, as it is said, lest thy brother be vile in thine eyes; when he is beaten, lo, he is thy brother; an high priest, that commits a crime, is beaten by three (i.e. a bench of three judges, by their order), as the rest of all the people, and he returns to his grandeur; but the head of the session (or court of judicature), that commits a crime, they beat him, but he does not return to his principality, nor even return to be as one of the rest of the sanhedrim; for they ascend in

12. holiness, but do not descend.''And yet Josephus represents it as a most infamous and scandalous punishment, as one would think indeed it should be; his words are (e), speaking of the laws concerning travellers being allowed to gather grapes, and pluck ears of corn as they passed;he that does contrary to these laws receives forty stripes, save one, with a public scourge; a free man undergoes this most filthy (or disgraceful) punishment, because for the sake of gain he reproaches his dignity.'' 4. Henry, “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. 5. KD, ““Forty shall ye beat him, and not add,” i.e., at most forty stripes, and not more. The strokes were administered with a stick upon the back (Pro_10:13; Pro_19:29; Pro_26:3, etc.). This was the Egyptian mode of whipping, as we may see depicted upon the monuments, when the culprits lie flat upon the ground, and being held fast by the hands and feet, receive their strokes in the presence of the judge (vid., Wilkinson, ii. p. 11, and Rosellini, ii. 3, p. 274, 78). The number forty was not to be exceeded, because a larger number of strokes with a stick would not only endanger health and life, but disgrace the man: “that thy brother do not become contemptible in thine eyes.” If he had deserved a severer punishment, he was to be executed. In Turkey the punishments inflicted are much more severe, viz., from fifty to a hundred lashes with a whip; and they are at the same time inhuman (see v. Tornauw, Moslem. Recht, p. 234). The number, forty, was probably chosen with reference to its symbolical significance, which it had derived from Gen_7:12 onwards, as the full measure of judgment. The Rabbins fixed the number at forty save one (vid., 2Co_11:24), from a scrupulous fear of transgressing the letter of the law, in case a mistake should be made in the counting; yet they felt no conscientious scruples about using a whip of twisted thongs instead of a stick

13. 6. RICH CATHERS, “The Jews actually would only give out 39 lashes, not because they were merciful, but in order to make sure they didn’t break the Law of Moses. Just in case someone miscounted, they were cautious not to break this law. Paul knew all about it. • (2 Cor 11:23-24 KJV) Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. {24} Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. 1. Barnes, “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. 1B. 1 Corinthians 9:9 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “a You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about boxen, is He? 1 Timothy 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “a You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “bThe laborer is worthy of his wages.” 2. Clarke, “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

14. 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. 3. Gill, “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. 4. Henry, “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

15. 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. 5. Jamison, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn — 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, 1Ti_5:18). 6. KD, “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). 7. CALVI, 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, (1 Corinthians 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.” (Proverbs 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. 8. GUZIK, “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

16. muzzle him so he couldn't eat of it. b. In 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul applies 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 asks, Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? 9. PULPIT COMMETARY, The leaving the ox unmuzzled when treading out the corn was in order that the animal might be free to eat of the grains which its labor severed from the husks. This prohibition, therefore, was dictated by a regard to the rights and claims of animals employed in labor; but there is involved in it the general principle that all labor is to be duly requited, and hence it seems to have passed into a proverb, and was applied to men as well as the lower animals (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18). The use of oxen to tread out the corn and the rule of leaving the animals so employed unmuzzled still prevail among the Arabs and other Eastern peoples. The use of this verse by the apostle has brought it out of an obscurity to which it might have been relegated. It is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:10, and is there applied by him as an illustration in the ancient Law of Moses of the same principle which our Lord affirmed when he appointed that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel (see Matthew 10:9, Matthew 10:10). We can scarcely go so far as John Calvin in reference to Paul's allusion to it. He says that Paul here says, God does not care for oxen! Surely his meaning is simply that it was not merely from his care for oxen that God commanded Moses to pen such a precept, but that there was a common care of God for all his creatures, and that if he cared thus for the less, it was very certain he would care even more for the greater. Labor, moreover, is to be like all native growths—it is to have its seed within itself. All who employ laborers are to see that their workmen are sufficiently well paid to enable them to live by their labor. Any one desiring to develop this truth in relation to spiritual toil would naturally rather take the ew Testament texts referred to above. Keeping, therefore, simply to the earthly sphere, we remark: 1. o precept in this book which is connected with duty or character is too trivial to be worthy of God. 2. An apparently small command may wrap up in it a great principle. 3. True benevolence will be kind and thoughtful to the humblest laborer even in minute detail. 4. God does not allow any one selfishly to monopolize the fruits of another's labor without giving the toiler adequate compensation for his toil.

17. 5. The Great Defender of the rights of the working classes is—God! 6. It is a divinely appointed ordinance forever that the power of toil is to be a means of self-support; that labor shall bring wealth to the laborer. Here is a blow struck at slavery. The apostle draws from this passage the general principle that the laborer is entitled to eat of the fruits of his labor (1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Corinthians 9:10). His application teaches us to look for similar general principles wrapped up in other precepts of the Law. We learn— I. AIMALS ARE ETITLED TO GEEROUS TREATMET. The ox that trod out the corn was not to be muzzled. He was to be permitted to eat of the fruits of his work. Kindness to animals is a duty: 1. Which man owes to the creatures. Severe moralists, arguing that animals, being destitute of reason, are also destitute of rights, would bring all man's duties towards them under the head of duties to himself (e.g. Kant). Alford thinks this to be implied in Paul's language. But Paul's argument, if it is to be pressed in this connection, rather implies the contrary. It recognizes in the ox, on the ground of its being a laborer, a kind of right to be provided for. All that the apostle affirms is that the precept had an end beyond the reference to oxen, that the care for oxen was subordinate to the inculcation of a principle of general application. Our duty to the creatures rests on the ground that they are sentient beings, capable of pain and pleasure, and on the law of love, which requires us to diffuse happiness, and avoid inflicting needless suffering. 2. Which man owes to himself. For this view, while not the whole of the truth, is an important part of it. Leibnitz, in a small treatise written for the education of a prince, advised that, during youth, he should not be permitted to torment or give pain to any living thing, lest, by indulging the spirit of cruelty, he should contract a want of feeling for his fellow-men. Alford says, The good done to a man's immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes. II. THE HUMA LABORER IS ETITLED TO SHARE I THE PROFITS OF HIS LABORS. Theoretically, he does so every time he is paid wages. In the distribution of the fruits of production, the part which the laborer gets, we are told, is wages, the share of the landowner is rent, that of the capitalist is interest, and the Government takes taxes. Practically, however, wages are settled, not by abstract rules of fairness, but by competition, which may press so hard upon the laborer as (till things right themselves) to deprive him of his fair proportion of industrial

18. profits. The wage system is far from working satisfactorily. As society advances, it appears to be leading to an increasing amount of bitterness and friction. Masters and men represent opposing interests, and stand, as it were, at daggers drawn. It is easier to see the evil than to devise a cure. Economists (Mill, Jevons, etc.) seem to look mainly in the direction of some form of co-operation. Their schemes are principally two; 1. Industrial co-operation. 2. Industrial partnerships—the system according to which a fixed proportion of profits is assigned for division amongst the workmen engaged in production. III. MIISTERS OF THE GOSPEL ARE ETITLED TO BE SUPPORTED BY THEIR FLOCKS. This is the application made by Paul (1 Corinthians 9:1-27.; cf. Matthew 10:10-12; Galatians 6:6). Christian ministers, laboring in spiritual things, and by that work withdrawn from ordinary avocations, are to be cheerfully supported. The text applies to this case more strictly than to the case of workmen claiming to participate in profits. The workman claims but his own. The right of the minister to support is of a different kind. He labors in things spiritual, but, it is to be hoped, with a higher end than the mere obtaining of a livelihood. While, therefore, his support is a duty, it is, like duties of benevolence generally, not one that can be enforced by positive law. The right to support is a moral, not a legal one. It creates an obligation, but, as moralists say, an indeterminate obligation. It is an obligation to be freely accepted, and as freely discharged.—J.O. 10, F. B. MEYER, GOD taketh care of oxen, is Paul's comment on this text; and so God did. These pages are filled with tokens of His thought--for the ass that might not be overtaxed by being set to plough with an ox; for the ass or ox which were to be helped up if they had sunk on the road overpowered with their burdens; or for the bird sitting on her nest. Here the ox, as it went around the monotonous tread of the mill, was to be allowed to take a chance mouthful of corn. The care for dumb creatures is part of our religious duty. It is one of the elements of religion to think for the dumb creatures, who are not able to speak for themselves, but suffer so patiently the accumulated wrongs heaped on them by man. A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Oh, when will the travail of creation cease! Man's sin has indeed worked woe for the lower orders of creation. The Apostle used this injunction to remind his converts of the necessity of caring for their spiritual teachers. Some are called to plough, others to thresh; but he that plougheth should plough in hope; and he that thresheth in hope should be partaker

19. of his hope (1 Cor. 9:10). They that serve the altar should live by the altar; and those who proclaim the Gospel should live of the Gospel. But there is sweet encouragement here for those who are anxious about their daily bread. God takes care for oxen; will He not for you? Shall the oxen browse on the wolds and pasture-lands, and be nourished to fatness, and will He leave to starve the soul that really trusts and serves Him? 5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 1. Barnes, “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. ם יַ ֵ ,denom.from יָבָם ,abrother-in-law,husband'sbrother,lit.,toactthe brother-in-law,i.e.,performthedutyofabrother-in-law,whichconsistedinhismarryinghis deceasedbrother'swidow,andbegettingasonofchildrenwithher,thefirst-bornofwhomwas “tostanduponthenameofhisdeceasedbrother,”i.e.,beplacedinthefamilyofthedeceased, andberecognisedastheheirofhisproperty,thathisname(thenameofthemanwhohaddied childless)mightnotbewipedoutorvanishoutofIsrael.Theprovision,“withouthavingason” (ben),hasbeencorrectlyinterpretedbythelxx,Vulg.,Josephus (Ant.iv.8,23),andtheRabbins , assignifyingchildless(havingnoseed,Mat_22:25);forifthedeceasedhadsimplyadaughter, accordingtoNum_27:4.,theperpetuationofhishouseandnamewastobeensuredthroughher. Theobligationofabrother-in-law'smarriageonlyexistedincaseswherethebrothershadlived together,i.e.,inoneandthesameplace,notnecessarilyinonehouseorwithacommondomestic establishmentandhome(vid.,Gen_13:6;Gen_36:7).-Thiscustomofabrother-in-law's (Levirate)marriage,whichismetwithindifferentnations,andasanoldtraditionalcustom

20. amongtheIsraelites(seeatGen_38:8.),haditsnaturalrootsinthedesireinherentinman,who isformedforimmortality,andconnectedwiththehithertoundevelopedbeliefinaneternallife, tosecureacontinuedpersonalexistenceforhimselfandimmoralityforhisname,throughthe perpetuationofhisfamilyandinthelifeofthesonwhotookhisplace.Thisdesirewasnot suppressedinIsraelbydivinerevelation,butratherincreased,inasmuchasthepromisesgivento thepatriarchswereboundupwiththepreservationandpropagationoftheirseedandname.The promisegiventoAbrahamforhisseedwouldofnecessitynotonlyraisethebegettingofchildren inthereligiousviewsoftheIsraelitesintotheworkdesiredbyGodandwell-pleasingtoHim,but wouldalsogivethissignificancetothetraditionalcustomofpreservingthenameandfamilyby thesubstitutionofamarriageofduty,thattheywouldtherebysecuretothemselvesandtheir familyashareintheblessingofpromise.Mosesthereforerecognisedthiscustomasperfectly justifiable;buthesoughttorestrainitwithinsuchlimits,thatitshouldnotpresentany impedimenttothesanctificationofmarriageaimedatbythelaw.Hetookawaythecompulsory character,whichithithertopossessed,byprescribinginDeu_25:7.,thatifthesurvivingbrother refusedtomarryhiswidowedsister-in-law,shewastobringthematterintothegatebeforethe eldersofthetown(vid.,Deu_21:19),i.e.,beforethemagistrates;andifthebrother-in-lawstill persistedinhisrefusal,shewastotakehisshoefromoffhisfootandspitinhisface,withthese words:“Soletitbedonetothemanwhodoesnotbuilduphisbrother'shouse.” ThetakingoffoftheshoewasanancientcustominIsrael,adopted,accordingtoRth_4:7,in casesofredemptionandexchange,forthepurposeofconfirmingcommercialtransactions.The usagearosefromthefact,thatwhenanyonetookpossessionoflandedpropertyhedidsoby treadinguponthesoil,andassertinghisrightofpossessionbystandinguponitinhisshoes.In thiswaythetakingoffoftheshoeandhandingittoanotherbecameasymboloftherenunciation ofaman'spositionandproperty,-asymbolwhichwasalsocommonamongtheIndiansandthe ancientGermans(seemyArchäologie,ii.p.66).Butthecustomwasanignominiousoneinsuch acaseasthis,whentheshoewaspubliclytakenoffthefootofthebrother-in-lawbythewidow whomherefusedtomarry.Hewasthusdeprivedofthepositionwhichheoughttohave occupiedinrelationtoherandtohisdeceasedbrother,ortohispaternalhouse;andthedisgrace involvedinthiswasstillfurtherheightenedbythefactthathissister-in-lawspatinhisface.This isthemeaningofthewords(cf.Num_12:14),andnotmerelyspitonthegroundbeforehiseyes, asSaalschütz andothersaswellastheTalmudists(tr.Jebam. xii.6)renderit,forthepurposeof diminishingthedisgrace.“Builduphisbrother'shouse,”i.e.,laythefoundationofafamilyor posterityforhim(cf.Gen_16:2).-Inadditiontothis,theunwillingbrother-in-lawwastoreceive anameofridiculeinIsrael:“Houseoftheshoetakenoff ”( עַל חֲלוּץ ] הַ ַ ,takenoffastohisshoe;cf.

21. Ewald,§288,b.),i.e.,ofthebarefootedman,equivalentto“themiserablefellow;”foritwasonly inmiserablecircumstancesthattheHebrewswentbarefoot(vid.,Isa_20:2-3;etedasafalse freedomgrantedtothefemalesex”(Baumgarten),thelawisaddedimmediatelyafterwards,that awomanwhosehusbandwasquarrellingwithanother,andwhoshouldcometohisassistanceby layingholdofthesecretpartsofthemanwhowasstrikingherhusband,shouldhaveherhandcut off. 1B.Matthew 22:24 24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘a If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ MMMMaaaarrrrkkkk11112:11119999 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that a if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife and leaves no child, his brother should 1 marry the wife and raise up children to his brother. LLLLuuuukkkkeeee20000:28888 28 and they questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that a if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should 1 marry the wife and raise up children to his brother. 2. CALVI, “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

22. 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. 3. Gill, “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

23. 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. 4. Henry, “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

24. 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. 5. Jamison, “the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother ... shall take her to him to wife — 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.

25. 6. KD, “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. ם יַ ֵ ,denom.from יָבָם ,abrother-in-law,husband'sbrother,lit.,toactthebrother-in-law, i.e.,performthedutyofabrother-in-law,whichconsistedinhismarryinghisdeceased brother'swidow,andbegettingasonofchildrenwithher,thefirst-bornofwhomwas“tostand uponthenameofhisdeceasedbrother,”i.e.,beplacedinthefamilyofthedeceased,andbe recognisedastheheirofhisproperty,thathisname(thenameofthemanwhohaddied childless)mightnotbewipedoutorvanishoutofIsrael.Theprovision,“withouthavingason” (ben),hasbeencorrectlyinterpretedbythelxx,Vulg.,Josephus (Ant.iv.8,23),andtheRabbins , assignifyingchildless(havingnoseed,Mat_22:25);forifthedeceasedhadsimplyadaughter, accordingtoNum_27:4.,theperpetuationofhishouseandnamewastobeensuredthroughher. Theobligationofabrother-in-law'smarriageonlyexistedincaseswherethebrothershadlived together,i.e.,inoneandthesameplace,notnecessarilyinonehouseorwithacommondomestic establishmentandhome(vid.,Gen_13:6;Gen_36:7).-Thiscustomofabrother-in-law's (Levirate)marriage,whichismetwithindifferentnations,andasanoldtraditionalcustom amongtheIsraelites(seeatGen_38:8.),haditsnaturalrootsinthedesireinherentinman,who isformedforimmortality,andconnectedwiththehithertoundevelopedbeliefinaneternallife, tosecureacontinuedpersonalexistenceforhimselfandimmoralityforhisname,throughthe perpetuationofhisfamilyandinthelifeofthesonwhotookhisplace.Thisdesirewasnot suppressedinIsraelbydivinerevelation,butratherincreased,inasmuchasthepromisesgivento thepatriarchswereboundupwiththepreservationandpropagationoftheirseedandname.The promisegiventoAbrahamforhisseedwouldofnecessitynotonlyraisethebegettingofchildren inthereligiousviewsoftheIsraelitesintotheworkdesiredbyGodandwell-pleasingtoHim,but wouldalsogivethissignificancetothetraditionalcustomofpreservingthenameandfamilyby thesubstitutionofamarriageofduty,thattheywouldtherebysecuretothemselvesandtheir familyashareintheblessingofpromise.Mosesthereforerecognisedthiscustomasperfectly justifiable;buthesoughttorestrainitwithinsuchlimits,thatitshouldnotpresentany impedimenttothesanctificationofmarriageaimedatbythelaw.Hetookawaythecompulsory character,whichithithertopossessed,byprescribinginDeu_25:7.,thatifthesurvivingbrother refusedtomarryhiswidowedsister-in-law,shewastobringthematterintothegatebeforethe eldersofthetown(vid.,Deu_21:19),i.e.,beforethemagistrates;andifthebrother-in-lawstill persistedinhisrefusal,shewastotakehisshoefromoffhisfootandspitinhisface,withthese

26. words:“Soletitbedonetothemanwhodoesnotbuilduphisbrother'shouse.” ThetakingoffoftheshoewasanancientcustominIsrael,adopted,accordingtoRth_4:7,in casesofredemptionandexchange,forthepurposeofconfirmingcommercialtransactions.The usagearosefromthefact,thatwhenanyonetookpossessionoflandedpropertyhedidsoby treadinguponthesoil,andassertinghisrightofpossessionbystandinguponitinhisshoes.In thiswaythetakingoffoftheshoeandhandingittoanotherbecameasymboloftherenunciation ofaman'spositionandproperty,-asymbolwhichwasalsocommonamongtheIndiansandthe ancientGermans(seemyArchäologie,ii.p.66).Butthecustomwasanignominiousoneinsuch acaseasthis,whentheshoewaspubliclytakenoffthefootofthebrother-in-lawbythewidow whomherefusedtomarry.Hewasthusdeprivedofthepositionwhichheoughttohave occupiedinrelationtoherandtohisdeceasedbrother,ortohispaternalhouse;andthedisgrace involvedinthiswasstillfurtherheightenedbythefactthathissister-in-lawspatinhisface.This isthemeaningofthewords(cf.Num_12:14),andnotmerelyspitonthegroundbeforehiseyes, asSaalschütz andothersaswellastheTalmudists(tr.Jebam. xii.6)renderit,forthepurposeof diminishingthedisgrace.“Builduphisbrother'shouse,”i.e.,laythefoundationofafamilyor posterityforhim(cf.Gen_16:2).-Inadditiontothis,theunwillingbrother-in-lawwastoreceive anameofridiculeinIsrael:“Houseoftheshoetakenoff ”( עַל חֲלוּץ ] הַ ַ ,takenoffastohisshoe;cf. Ewald,§288,b.),i.e.,ofthebarefootedman,equivalentto“themiserablefellow;”foritwasonly inmiserablecircumstancesthattheHebrewswentbarefoot(vid.,Isa_20:2-3;etedasafalse freedomgrantedtothefemalesex”(Baumgarten),thelawisaddedimmediatelyafterwards,that awomanwhosehusbandwasquarrellingwithanother,andwhoshouldcometohisassistanceby layingholdofthesecretpartsofthemanwhowasstrikingherhusband,shouldhaveherhandcut off. 7. DAVE GUZIK, “(5-10) The marriage obligation of surviving brothers. a. 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 is 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. 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: 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. i. Son here may simply mean child. In the history of the interpretation of this

27. 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 (2um 27:1-8). (Kalland) c. If the brothers of the deceased man refused to take this responsibility, they were to be called to open shame by the widow, as she declares he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. The shame was compounded as they would remove his sandal and the widow would spit in his face. 8. HAWKER, I venture to think that this precept had in it somewhat more, than merely what is contained in the obvious letter of it. If it be remembered, that the promise of the woman’s seed, bruising the serpent’s head, had not in those early ages been so clearly and fully revealed, in what stock or tribe the promised seed should spring, this will serve to show, why it was that the whole nation of the Jews were so very anxious to have children. And, therefore, the preserving the name in Israel was principally with this view. But if we turn to the example of Boaz, in the case of Ruth, where this precept was fully carried into effect, and read what the HOLY GHOST hath been pleased to record concerning this thing: and if we do not forget, at the same time, that Boaz after the flesh, was a progenitor of the LORD JESUS CHRIST; the subject will then open to our view in all its glory. See Rth_3:9, to the end, and Ru 4 throughout. Blessed JESUS! thou art indeed our near kinsman, our GOD-Redeemer! and thou hast not only married our nature, but hast redeemed our mortgaged inheritance, when all other brethren were incompetent to do it. 9. PULPIT COMMETARY, Levirate marriages. If a man who was married died without issue, his surviving brother was required to marry the widow, so as to raise up a successor to the deceased, who should be his heir. The brother who refused this duty must be publicly disgraced. The design of this institution—which was not originated by Moses, but came down from early times (Genesis 38:8), and is to be found amongst ether nations than the Jews, and that even in the present day—was to preserve a family from becoming extinct and to secure the property of a family from passing into the hands of a stranger. The notion that the usage had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man who is born for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immortality for his name through the perpetuation of his family, and in the life of the son who took his place (Keil), seems wholly fanciful. The levitate law. At the root of this law, which obtained widely in the East, we find ideas and feelings such as these— I. RESPECT FOR THE HOOR OF THE FAMILY. In the East, as is well known, childlessness is reckoned a calamity, almost a disgrace. Hence, as well as for other reasons, the severity of the law in Deuteronomy 25:11. Hence also this custom of

28. marrying a brother's widow, in order to raise up seed to the brother. The motive is plainly to avert disgrace from a brother's house, to wipe out his reproach, to hand down his name in honor. We may respect the feeling while repudiating the form in which it embodied itself. What touches the credit of our families ought to be felt to concern ourselves. ot in the sense, certainly, of leading us to uphold that credit at the expense of truth and of justice to others; but in the sense of doing everything we can with a good conscience to maintain or redeem it. II. DESIRE FOR A PERPETUATED AME. The men of the old dispensation, as Matthew Henry says, not having so clear and certain a prospect of living themselves on the other side death as we have now, were the more anxious to live in their posterity. The principle is the same at bottom as that which leads us to wish for personal immortality. What man desires is perpetuated existence, of which existence in one's posterity is a kind of shadow, affording, in contemplation, a like shadow of satisfaction to the mind. Positivism, in falling back from a personal to a corporate immortality, is thus a movement in the wrong direction. The exchange it proposes is the substance for the shadow. The desire to exist in the remembrance of posterity, and to be well thought of by them, is, however, a legitimate principle of action. It should operate in leading us to live good and useful lives, which is the secret of the only lasting honor. Only the actions of the just Smell sweet and blossom in the dust. III. THE DISGRACE ATTACHIG TO REFUSAL OF THE DUTIES IMPOSED O US BY RELATIOSHIP TO THE DEAD. The disgrace in this case was emphatically marked (verses 9, 10). The wishes of the dead should be very sacred to us. The duties which spring from the bond of relationship, or from express request, should, if possible, be faithfully discharged. Aiding in the settlement of affairs, seeing provision made for a widow and children, accepting and fulfilling trusts, etc.—J.O. The rights of the firstborn. We have already observed that the firstborn had a right to a double share of the family inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17). We have before us another of his rights—a seed was to be raised up unto him by his younger brothers, that his name should not be put out in Israel. In a peasant proprietary such as existed in Palestine, we can easily understand the importance of such a regulation. It was, moreover, esteemed a most disgraceful act to refuse to raise up seed unto a dead brother, and the man guilty of it had to suffer the indignity of being spat upon, and of having his shoe

29. contemptuously loosed. ow, there can be no question that Jesus Christ occupies the position of Eldest Brother in the family of God. ot only was it declared prophetically, I will make him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth (Psalms 89:27), but he is expressly called the Firstborn from the dead, the Firstborn among many brethren, and the Firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15). Undoubtedly, then, the rights guaranteed by Jewish Law to the firstborn were intended to illustrate the rights of Jesus Christ. I. JESUS CHRIST, LIKE THE DEAD FIRSTBOR, HAS TO DEPED O OTHERS FOR A SPIRITUAL SEED. For in the nature of things it would have been incongruous for Incarnate God to have entered into marriage with any daughter of Adam, and to have become physically a father. His condescension was surely great enough in becoming man at all, and it could not be expected that he would enter into still closer relations to the race. one ever stood in the relation to physical children of Jesus Christ; it would have made a confusion in the contemplated spiritual relationship. Hence our Lord bad to look to others to raise him up a seed. II. IT LIFTS THE FAMILY RELATIO ITO THE HOLIEST LIGHT TO THIK THAT WE MAY BE RAISIG UP A SPIRITUAL SEED FOR JESUS. How holy all marriage relations become when it is felt to be possible to be providing the Great Elder Brother with a spiritual seed! The children sent of God are then regarded as Christ's; we dedicate them to him in prayer, and perhaps also in baptism; we handle them and rear them as consecrated things; we train them up in his nurture and admonition, and we feel honored in having any part in the formation of the mighty family. III. IT LIFTS THE PASTORAL AS WELL AS PARETAL RELATIO ITO THE HOLIEST LIGHT. In Weemse's book on the 'Ceremonial Laws of Moses,' where the privileges of the firstborn are so fully discussed, the application is made to preachers rather than to parents. But we think that parents should feel the elevation of spirit and life which the idea of raising up a seed for Jesus is fitted to impart. And if parents should feel it, much more should pastors. We are meant to be the spiritual fathers of men. We have exceptional advantages in prosecuting the holy work. Oh, how glorious it is to think of adding by our faithful labors to the great family of God! It is the ame and honor of Jesus which we should seek to perpetuate by our pastoral labors. And so our aim is to have men born again through the incorruptible seed, the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever (1 Peter 1:23).

30. IV. AY REFUSAL TO RAISE UP A SEED FOR JESUS WILL BE VISITED BY GOD I DUE SEASO WITH DIRE DISGRACE. For the spitting in the face and the unloosing of the shoe are but symbols of the dire disgrace which shall overtake all who will not engage in this holy work. It is a work for Church members as well as for ministers. It lies as a responsibility upon every one that names the ame of Jesus, and is a younger brother or sister in the family of God. Woe be to the person who is indifferent to this! And surely it should stimulate us to remember that the great ambition of Jesus is to have many brethren. The mightier the multitude of redeemed ones the better. The glory and honor of Immanuel shall thus be the more thoroughly secured. He has no desire to be the solitary and selfish heir; but the whole plan of redemption is to have as many as possible joint-heirs with him. As families and as Churches grow in numbers and in loyalty to Jesus, his rights as Firstborn are being regarded and secured (Romans 8:17). We cannot picture the dire disgrace which the refusal to secure the rights of Jesus Christ will entail. But the selfish souls will be the off scouring of all things; angels will despise them as having highest honor within reach, and not having the heart to accept it. Oh, let every one that has a word to speak and a kindness to perform in the ame of Jesus, do it in the holy hope of increasing the spiritual seed of the great and loving Elder Brother!—R.M.E. 10. PETER PETTIT, We should note the condition. The brothers must be ‘dwelling together’ (compare Psalms 133:1). That meant that they must be living on the same ‘estate’, although not necessarily in the same house, with their lands jointly worked as a family concern. They would have decided to keep the family estates together rather than split them up when they inherited. It therefore suggested a close family bond. Family feeling and family unity was especially strong among the ancients. This condition indicated that the aim to keep the estates together and the maintenance of the deceased brother’s name were central to the whole idea. The idea then was that the surviving brother should take his brother’s wife as one of his own wives in order to keep things in the family, although it may well be that she had a more independent status and was not necessarily seen as a fully functioning wife. Any land that she had brought with her would then remain in the family and not go to ‘strangers’, as would any wealth that had passed to her. She should not need to look for an outsider to marry, but would remain as a part of the family circle. And the brother would have discreet sexual relations with her in order to ‘perform the duty of a husband’s brother’ towards her, so as to raise up a son for his brother. This was the only case where a woman having sexual relations with her husband’s brother was allowed. Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21 refer either to where the brother was still living or to cases where the marriage was for the wrong

31. reasons. Intention was everything, and would be known to Yahweh. There was nothing sordid or behind hand about it. The aim was totally meritorious, to preserve the brother’s name. umbers 27:8-11 may suggest that it may not have been seen as necessary when there were daughters who could inherit, although as that would not ensure the preservation of the deceased husband’s name, it was probably seen as second best. That case may have in mind circumstances where a Levirate marriage was not possible through a failure to be able to meet the conditions in one way or another (through, for example, the refusal mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:7, or because the family was no longer a close family unit, or because the wife was also dead). But once they had inherited their father’s land the women were not then to marry outside the tribe, taking the land with them (see umbers 36:1-9). This does bring out how important it was seen to be at that time that land remained within the family and within the tribe. And that the Levirate marriage would ensure. 11. I don't have a name for whoever wrote all of the following on this verse. :5 and have no child There was also a period of three months that followed the death of the husband, during which everyone waited to see if the widow was pregnant from her deceased husband. If she was already pregnant, then this law wasn’t put into effect. :5 her husband's brother shall go in unto her, This section was known as the “Levirate” law, the duty of a man to raise up a name for a deceased brother who had no offspring. The Latin word levir means “brother-in-law”. There were two unwritten rules here – first, it was the eldest brother who had the duty to marry the widow, and second, only if the brother was unmarried. This is how the Jews put this into practice. This was a custom that actually predated Moses. When Judah’s son Er died without having had a child with his wife Tamar, Judah made Er’s brother Onan marry Tamar to produce offspring (Gen. 38:8).

32. (Gen 38:8 KJV) And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. The Sadducees used this law to try and trap Jesus: (Mat 22:23-33 KJV) The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, {24} Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. {25} Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: {26} Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. {27} And last of all the woman died also. {28} Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. They were building a situation based upon the Levirate law, where a brother dies and the wife is taken by the next brother to fulfill his responsibilities. Then this brother dies, and the next brother takes her, and so on until all brothers have died. The Sadducees don’t believe in a resurrection, and they want to show how silly the whole idea is. They think they have a difficult situation for Jesus to solve in asking whose wife she will be in this “resurrection”. {29} Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. {30} For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. There is no marriage in heaven. We will not be married to our spouse in heaven. For some, this is a relief. I hope for most of us, this is sad news. Jesus’ approach to their argument is simply to tell them that the gal won’t be married to any of them in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven. You won’t stay married to your current spouse in heaven, you won’t be marrying anybody else in heaven. There are other belief systems that have ideas about heaven that differ from the Bible. Islam I don’t know if this qualifies as marriage in heaven, but in the Qur’an it is written, “Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires; Gardens enclosed, and grapevines, And voluptuous women of equal age” (78:31-33). Mormonism The Mormons have some unusual ideas about marriage and heaven. They have a ritual that “seals” your marriage so you will be married in heaven, then you can have spirit babies, and become a god over your own planet. Former LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote that those who attain exaltation …inherit in due course the fullness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all power in heaven and on earth... (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257). The LDS Doctrine and

33. Covenants also teaches that then shall they be gods, because they have no end…then shall they be gods, because they have all power… (DC 132:16-26). This is the ultimate goal in Mormonism. This sounds a little like what we read in Genesis 3:5 – your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, the only problem is, this is what Satan said to tempt Eve. One of the requirements to reach this goal is what Mormons call celestial marriage. Today celestial marriage is simply defined as a marriage in a Mormon temple designed to last not just until death but throughout all eternity. Couples joined in such marriages are considered sealed to each other. Their children afterward are automatically sealed to them as well. This, they believe, ensures that their family will continue in heaven eternally as a complete unit. McConkie wrote, Celestial marriage is the gate to exaltation, and exaltation consists in the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Exaltation is…the kind of life which God lives (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257). Celestial marriage is an absolute necessity to reach this desired goal. Its importance in the place of salvation and exaltation cannot be overestimated. The most important things that any member of (the LDS Church) ever does in this world are: 1) To marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority; and 2) To keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony… (Mormon Doctrine pg. 118). All Mormon men who desire Godhood are required to marry; if they do not, their leaders have taught that their actions will be displeasing to God. For instance, 10th LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said, Any young man who carelessly neglects this great commandment to marry, or who does not marry because of a selfish desire to avoid the responsibilities which married life will bring, is taking a course which is displeasing in the sight of God…There can be no exaltation without it. If a man refuses…he is taking a course which may bar him forever from (exaltation). (Doctrines of Salvation 2:74). The amazing thing is that this idea of being married in heaven clearly contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus rebuked the Sadducees because they were making up a silly situation, assuming that there was marriage in heaven, when in fact there was no such thing. {31} But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, {32} I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. {33} And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. Besides not believing in a resurrection, the Sadducees also believed that only the first five books of Moses were inspired. They did not believe in the inspiration of the prophets, the Psalms, the history books, etc. When Jesus quotes the Scriptures for the Sadducees (“I am the God of Abraham …”), He quotes from Exodus 3:6, from one of the books that they accept. God had told Moses that He is currently the God of Abraham. If there was no resurrection, God would have told Moses, “I WAS the God of Abraham” since Abraham had long been dead at Moses’ time. Jesus told the Sadducees that they were mistaken in their ideas because they were unfamiliar with the Scriptures and unfamiliar with the true power of God.