Okay,
Introduction and Overview
we're in Deuteronomy chapter 25. We're almost coming to the conclusion of a major section in the book of Deuteronomy that begins at the end of chapter 4. begins properly in chapter 5, God's law. The Decalogue or the Ten Commandments are restated in Deuteronomy chapter 5, and then expounded, explained, and applied all the way up to chapter 26, verse 19. So we are coming to the conclusion probably next Wednesday night of that large section.
But tonight we're taking up some miscellaneous laws in Deuteronomy 25 verses 4 to 19. Steve asked if I had a title. I said miscellaneous laws. or Provisions for Workers, Leveret Marriage, Threat to Progeny, Weights and Measures, and Destroying the Amalekites. That would be a working title, if you will.
Those are the themes taken up in this particular chapter. Provision for the Laborer, Leveret Marriage, I'll explain as we go on, Threat to Progeny, the Necessity for Just Weights and Measures, and then How to Deal with the Amalekites in the Land. I'll just pick up reading in chapter 25 at verse 1.
Scripture Reading: Deuteronomy 25:1-19
If there is a dispute between men and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they judge the righteous and condemn the wicked, then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. Forty blows he may give him, and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these. And your brother be humiliated in your sight. You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.
If brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family. Her husband's brother shall go into her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders and say, my husband's brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel.
He will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. and the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, I do not want to take her, then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, so shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him who had his sandal removed. If two men fight and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall not cut off her hand.
Your eyes shall not pity her. You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. You shall have a perfect and just way, a perfect and just measure, that your days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord your God. Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary, and he did not fear God. Therefore, it shall be when the Lord your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.
Well,
Introduction
remember, this is a series of addresses on the plains of Moab from Moses to the children of Israel prior to their entry into the promised land, prior to their conquest of the promised land. under Joshua and the subsequent division of the land to the various tribes of Israel. And so what we find in some of these chapters are miscellaneous laws. There are laws given to govern the conduct of the people of God as they relate to one another in the community and as they relate to those outside of the community. And that's precisely what we find in this particular section.
The larger overarching section deals with the sanctification of the theocratic kingdom. Theocracy simply means God's rule. Democracy is the people rule. Theocracy is when God rules directly, and that's what he was doing with the covenant nation of Israel.
And so this larger section, or the larger theme, beginning in chapter 23, is the sanctification of the theocratic kingdom. Various issues going on here, we'll just get right to it. We've already looked at verses 1 to 3, which dealt with corporal punishment. And then we not only looked at corporal punishment, but we looked at the other types of punishment in the Old Testament as well.
We spent two weeks, the last two weeks, looking at capital punishment. So we've already looked at verses 1 to 3, so
Provision for Workers
let's pick up in verse 4, which deals with the proper provision for workers. You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. And we know that in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul appeals to this particular verse. Here, it certainly does include oxen.
It certainly includes animals. I think, though, it has a proverbial nature even in this context. It seems a bit out of place to deal with animals, so we might see it as a general principle dealing with the just recompense of those who engage in labor. But it does apply to animals.
You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. Remember that we've seen in this book of Deuteronomy, they were supposed to have a righteous stewardship in the land. They were not to go in and destroy all the trees. They were not to go in and eat the eggs of the bird and then kill the mother bird. let the mother bird go to propagate the species so that there would be food laid up for them in the future.
They were to exercise responsible stewardship in the land. They were to exercise responsible stewardship over the animals that the Lord God entrusted to them. In Proverbs 12, verse 10, it says, A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. If the oxen is treading out the grain, let him eat.
Don't muzzle him, let him enjoy some of the fruit of his labor. Now certainly if that applies to oxen, it most certainly applies to men as well. In fact, there might be some connection with the preceding. In verses 1 to 3, we are seeing, or we see, that dignity is to be preserved in the beating of a criminal for his evil works.
Certainly, for a man engaged in good work, who's treading out grain, or engaged in a lawful day's employ, do not muzzle him. Let him eat while he is engaged in that particular task. Now, we know that the Apostle Paul uses it in the context of paying men who preach the gospel 1st Corinthians chapter 9 verse 9 and then again in 1st Timothy chapter 5 and verse 18 it's interesting in 1st Timothy 5 verse 18 the Apostle says for the scripture says and then he quotes this passage and additionally he quotes from Luke's gospel where it says that the laborer is worthy of his wages so Paul In that text in 1 Timothy 5.18 appeals to the scripture, both the Old and the New Testament. They're both consistent in terms of this provision for those who engage in lawful employment.
They're in that context specifically men who preach the gospel. But what we derive or what we conclude or deduce from this principle is, yes, don't muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. Don't muzzle a man while he's engaged in lawful employ. Give him the opportunity to eat from the fruit of his labor.
It is a good thing. Secondly,
Levirate Marriage: The Duty
notice the rule regarding the leveret marriage. Leveret, marriage. That is spelled L-E-V-I-R-A-T-E. You've probably seen that.
If you've done any study in the Old Testament, you've seen that term used. It comes from the Latin word levere, which means brother-in-law. So the rule regards a man who dies, it is the duty of his brother to take his widow as his particular wife. So let's look at the duty stated in verse 5.
If brothers dwell together, I don't know that that necessarily means they share the same house. Probably they share the same property. They are on the same farm or they're on the same piece or parcel of land. and then one of them dies and has no son. Probably we could understand son there as child, more generically speaking.
Because in Numbers chapter 27, if this situation occurs and there are daughters, then daughters are rightful heirs to land inheritance. You remember, it was the daughters of Zelophehad that came to Moses and said, you know, our father died, we don't have any brothers, what shall become of us? And so God rules that these girls get to inherit the particular land. So I think what we're supposed to understand in light of that passage in Numbers 27, in Deuteronomy 25, is that if brothers dwell together and one of them dies and is childless, has no heir, has none to inherit, then the specific duty is the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family.
She shall not be married to a stranger outside the family. I don't think this means a Gentile or a pagan or a heathen. It probably means somebody outside of their particular tribe. And I think the primary focus in this particular law isn't necessarily on her well-being, though that's in there.
But I think the primary focus is more covenantal in nature. Do you remember when God made covenant with Abraham? Two vital elements of that promise of blessing was seed and land. Seed and land were absolutely crucial to that Abrahamic promise, and I think that's what's being protected in this particular instance.
If a man dies, he is not then shunned from his rightful inheritance in terms of seed and land. He ought to have posterity. there ought to be one raised up from among him that is able to enjoy that particular blessing. So the idea of seed and land are vital elements of the promise made to Abraham and therefore inheritance was of vital importance in Israel's covenantal life. Now this wasn't confined to Israel, and it certainly predated the legislation here.
There's a passage in Genesis chapter 38 dealing with a man by the name of Onan. And a lot of times people take that passage to forbid certain types of sexual misconduct. It gets better to understand it there as this idea of the Leveret Law, that it is the responsibility of the surviving brother to take the widow unto himself so that his dead brother may have heir, may have seed, may have one who is rightfully entitled to the inheritance that is promised. This leverant marriage arrangement is certainly what was involved in the question posed by the Sadducees to our Lord Jesus.
Remember that scenario that they gave the Lord? You know, if a man has a wife and then he dies, and then she remarries, and then he dies, and I think they get to six or seven in this scenario. Well, the reason for this is that Sadducees denied the supernatural. They denied life the sort of life beyond the grave, if you will, or the supernatural state.
And so they are sort of showing or trying to put together an absurd situation. Jesus says, you do err. You don't know the scriptures. You don't know the power of them.
But that was what was behind their particular question, this idea of the leveret marriage. In the resurrection, which they denied, whose wife will she be? really got him now. It's interesting, all the times that people come to try to get Jesus, He just sends them packing in each and every instance. He's the one in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden.
This whole idea of the leverant marriage, it's for the specific purpose of granting name to this dead man. And that's specified there in verse 6. Just continuing in verse 5. Her husband's brother shall go into her take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel." So you see, it's a sign of affection, it's a sign of camaraderie, it's a sign of respect, and it's a sign of inheritance for that dead brother. And then
The Unwilling Brother-in-Law
notice what happens should he not want, well, let me just read one commentator who comments on this. I say, inheritance in Israel, land in Israel, posterity even for a dead Israelite. Marriage was not always based on romantic interests, but economic and covenantal interests. I mean, I know some of this stuff just seems so bizarre.
Like, the only way we'd ever think of getting married is if our hearts were melted. and we were just blown away with how wonderful this person was. When we read this sort of thing, it almost seems sort of cold, and it's arranged, and, you know, there's other ends in view than just my romantic delight. Yes, most of the time, up to, you know, within the last couple hundred years, people married more for specific reasons than, you know, we had stars in our eyes, and I just had to have her or him. We ought not to balk at such things, we ought to realize that God has his purposes.
Christopher Wright says, the institution, this leverant marriage, does three things. It provides for the security of the widow in her bereavement, and it offered the hope of removing the stigma of not having born a son. B, it prevented any loss of property or land to the wider family, which would happen if she married outside the family. And C, it ensured that the dead man's name would be carried forward for posterity in his family.
So there's covenantal reasons. There's reasons related to the promise. There's reasons related to that specific mention of seed and land to Abraham in the Abrahamic promise. And now notice, the procedure for the unwilling brother-in-law.
Verse 7. I know this is where, you know, it gets a little bit different. You know, she takes a sandal off and spits in his face. Not the kinds of things that we usually think about at a Wednesday night Bible study.
So let's just try to move through this and see what's going on here. Verse 7, but if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders and say." So there could be the situation, and it might be in the brother-in-law, it might be an unrighteous. Because if you continue in that Numbers 27 passage with the daughters of Zelophehan, when they come to ask about inheritance, what happens is if the father doesn't have a son, the property goes to the daughters. But if the father doesn't have a son or daughters, then the property goes to who?
Goes to his brothers. And so perhaps this unwilling brother is making this conclusion. If I marry her and she has a son, then he's going to get this land. If I resist marrying her, then chances are I could end up with this additional piece of property.
We don't want to read all of this into this poor guy, but we do need to understand what might be motivating. It might not just be the case that, you know, she's not his type, or he didn't get stars in his eyes, or he didn't get that romantic flutter of the chash. You know, when you read that, he doesn't want to take his brother's wife. Maybe he's just got such an allegiance to his current wife.
No, it may be the fact that he wants that parcel of land for himself. And so what we find is continuing here. But the thing that somewhat militates against this is that this isn't a law. The man can refuse.
If he's willing to take his sandal off or have his sandal removed and have his face spit upon and be termed the house of him who had his sandal removed, he's not going to go to jail, he's not going to be corporally punished, and he's certainly not going to be capitally punished for refusing to marry his dead brother's wife. He's going to look like a jerk. He's going to look like him who had his sandal removed. He's going to look like the one who got spit in his face from a woman.
He's going to look like one who had no affection for his brother or for his dead brother's wife. So there's a lot of stigma attached, but he's not being ultimately forced to engage in this particular activity. So a man has to weigh and choose the scenario. If he's okay to be called him who had his sandal removed, if he's okay to have his face spit at, if he's okay to be looked at as the guy in Israel that wouldn't even marry his dead brother's wife to do what the law asks him to do, then he's free to do that.
So let's see what's going on. If the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders and say, My husband's brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel. He will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. So she makes a formal allegation, a formal charge of the man's guilt.
Verse 8, Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. Don't we just appreciate that as we move through the book of Deuteronomy? Don't you just love procedure? Don't you just love the reality that the first to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him?
How many earthly judges today, and how many of us would hear a woman complain about somebody and immediately take her side? Now in this instance, she's actually right, but they call for the man. We need to learn from this, albeit an indirect application, albeit one sort of far removed, but albeit one I think all of us in the church really need to get a hold of. The elders of this city call him and speak to him.
What do you have to say for yourself? What do you have to say concerning this particular matter? We need to be very careful and very cautious and very hesitant before we begin to announce guilt upon a person when we haven't heard both sides. It's a very frustrating scenario.
Has anybody ever concluded that you've done something wrong without ever having heard your side? I don't need you to raise your hand if you live in this world. I'm sure it's happened to you. It's not right, is it?
You know there's a reason, or you know there's a context, or you know that there's a particular situation that this person just hasn't seen, hasn't taken the time to see, and has already basically tarred and feathered you. That's not right. But has there ever been a scenario in your own life where you've seen one side of a particular story and you've tarred or you've feathered that particular person? We need to make sure that we understand those two principles in Proverbs 18.
The first to plead his cause seems right until his neighbor comes and examines him. I am convinced that if the church actually practiced that principle, we'd be a lot better off. But then the Proverbs also say, he who answers a matter before he hears it, it's shame and folly to him. You're going to give a declaration of guilt or innocence based on one side?
Could it be? Now, I don't want to impugn evil on people, but could it be that at certain times and certain instances, people, when defending themselves, don't always give both sides? Could it possibly be that we like to portray ourselves in the best possible light? Could it possibly be the sense where we don't share something that looks bad to us, but we promote everything that looks bad in that person?
We need to be very cautious and careful and learn something from these elders in this particular city. She makes the allegation, she makes the formal charge. Verse 8 says, then the elders of the city shall call him and speak to him. Is this true?
Your brother died. Are you going to go into your brother's wife? Are you going to fulfill the duty that is requisite? Are you going to raise up for your brother a name so that his name isn't blotted out of Israel?
And then notice the situation. But if he stands firm and says, I do not want to take her. So there's the procedure. He's dug his foot into the ground.
He says, I do not want to take her. Now notice. Then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders. Notice that it's her engaged in this particular activity.
They don't have a crew. They don't have, you know, a bureaucrat. They don't have some paid employee that removes sandals and spits and faces. I think victims ought to be a part of the punitive situation.
I think that helps victims when they see what's actually being done. It helps them to gain some closure in the whole process. Then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face and answer and say, so shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house. And his name shall be called in Israel.
Notice his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him, who had his sandal removed. So it's not just him, but it's his entire family that fall under this stigma. So that when his wife's in the grocery store, people are able to say, she lives in the house of him that didn't remove the sandal. It is a stigma attached to this particular guy.
Now, what does this mean about the removal of the sandal? Kyle and Dalich help us. They certainly help me. The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted according to Ruth 4.7.
We can look at that passage in just a moment, because it's similar. It's not parallel. Because in that particular instance, Boaz isn't the brother-in-law. But the scenario is quite similar in terms of taking Ruth as his wife.
But Kyle and Dalich say, the taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel adopted according to Ruth 4.7 in cases of redemption and exchange for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions. The usage arose from the fact that when anyone took possession of landed property, he did so by treading upon the soil and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. We think about little ceremonies like this and it seems a bit of a stretch, but not really. We have ceremonies.
If somebody's going to, you know, consecrate a ship, they break a bottle of champagne on it. I mean, if we read about that in a hundred years, they broke a bottle of champagne on the ship, we'd probably be somewhat puzzled. or there's a new building and it's being dedicated and there's a ribbon cutting ceremony. So there's a big pink ribbon on this building and they get big, big scissors and they cut this ribbon. There's ceremonies that indicate or evidence something very particular, very specific.
And I believe that Kyle and Dalich are right. I don't know if Kyle or Dalich wrote this on Deuteronomy, so we'll say Kyle and Dalich. The usage arose from the fact that when anyone took possession of landed property, he did so by treading upon the soil and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way, the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man's position and property.
So this removal of the sandal ceremony indicated that this man was not then entitled to exercise this particular privilege. Maybe he'd get home and the stars would come up in his eyes and he'd say, boy, I really do want to take her as a wife after all. No, that's it. It's over.
You've renounced your title. You've renounced your particular duty. Another commentator, Alan Harmon, says the removal of the sandal indicated that the man was forfeiting any right to his brother's property, while spitting in the face was an act of contempt. We don't need to exegete that.
Spitting in the face meant then what it means today. We don't need Kyle and Dalich to help us with what spitting in the face means. He says, the book of Ruth helps to illustrate some of the principles involved in this present passage, but it is not strictly parallel. In the case of Ruth, Boaz was not the brother-in-law, but a distant relative.
There is no stigma on the man who does not wish to marry her, and the ritual of removing the sandal is different. You remember the man in the scenario concerning Ruth. Initially, he wanted to take Ruth, but then Boaz says, if you do so, then you have to take Ruth as well. Well, then the man concluded, that'll hurt my inheritance on the other side, so he didn't wish to exercise the privilege.
So Boaz was then free to go ahead and take Ruth. And in that instance, the sandal transfer was a positive thing, it wasn't a negative thing. We see this operative in the Old Testament. And then notice the pronouncement made, we've already covered this.
His name shall be called in Israel the house of him who had his sandal removed. Now if you were prepared to walk down the streets as the man who had his sandal removed, then you were free to do that. Again, Kyle and Dalich say, by these regulations, the brother-in-law's marriage was no doubt recognized as a duty of affection toward his deceased brother, but it was not made a command, the neglect of which would involve guilt and punishments. We need to understand that. as well.
If the man refused to, as long as they went through the sandal and spitting ceremony and he was okay with being known as the house of him who had his sandal removed, you couldn't make him marry this woman.
Threat to Progeny
The third scenario is the threat to progeny. Progeny simply means children, offspring. Again, I think that's what underlies verses 11 and 12. Seed and inheritance, land, all those things are crucial in the promised land.
You know, it's easy for us to sort of say, what's the big deal? Dirt meant a lot to those people. Right? It was a promised gift from the living and true God.
Remember when Abraham buys the grave or buys the tomb for Sarah. What's that an early sign of? God's promise is being fulfilled. Abraham purchases land in Canaan.
We see at the very beginning in that narrative that God's promise is coming to fruition. It's not something we should overlook and say, well, they were just a carnal earthly people. No, God had promised and that meant a lot. So notice the situation, verse 11.
If two men fight together, where else do we read that two men fight together? What's that? Exodus 21 22 to 25 two men fight together. I don't think Israel was everybody was fighting on the street.
In fact, when we read 11 and 12 here, I really doubt that this happened often. I mean, just to read it feels a bit shocking. She seizes genitals, you cut off hand, you don't show any pity. How often did this actually happen?
That two men would fight in the city street and one of the men's wives would grab the other man by the private parts in order to try and stop the fight. Probably didn't happen a whole lot. So when we read these, or you hear people that say, wow, the Bible, you know, talking about cutting off hands of poor innocent ladies. Wait a minute, there's a particular context, a particular situation, a specific incident that we need to understand covenantally.
Again, seed, inheritance, land, all these things. are crucial. Verse 11, if two men fight together and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall not pity her. So you see the scenario. Me and Steve are fighting, and one of our wives wants to get involved and help us.
Nothing wrong with wanting to help. Just don't help in this particular way. Probably what's in view, or probably what calls for the punishment in view, is not a modesty issue necessarily. It's probably the fact that she is hurting and possibly destroying this man's chance for progeny, for seed, for having children. coming off the heels of the leveret and seeing how important seed is and seeing how important it is to raise up one so that the name of a particular Israelite is not blotted out from Israel, I think that's probably what's in view.
It isn't the immodesty of her reaching out and grabbing this man's private parts, though that is immodest, she shouldn't do that, But the issue, the specific crime in view, is that she is hurting this particular man's, the chance and possibility of him having children. If she squeezes and she does damage to this particular man's area, then he could indeed be sterile. That's what the prohibition is more than likely involved with. The woman could permanently damage the man and ruin his ability to produce children.
That's the issue. That's the crime. That's the situation that she should most desperately avoid in this particular scenario. Some have linked it, or some have seen it as a direct attack, upon the covenant itself.
I mean, if you remember the Abrahamic covenant, how is it ratified? What is the covenant sign? It is circumcision. For her to attack that particular area, some have seen not only the threat to progeny, but a threat to the covenant community itself vis-a-vis this particular sign.
You can read all about that on your own time. I think the primary emphasis here is on the threat to progeny. And then notice, then you shall cut off her hand, your eyes shall not pity her. Remember the Lex Talionis calls for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
This isn't application of that law. She does not possess that genitalia. And so what is commensurate in this lex talionis? If she uses her hand to create this sort of a damage to this particular man, then she should lose her hand.
That's what the law dictates in this particular instance. Again, I think as we read this, if there were humanists here, if there were pagans here, they would probably be coming unglued. If any happen to log on tonight, I don't know that they would. Why a pagan or a humanist would go to freegrace.ca and listen to the Wednesday night Bible study is probably pretty incredulous, but if they did so, and they heard us discussing these things, they'd say, that's just terrible.
That's horrible. That's wicked and vicious. I like what Wright says, Christopher Wright. He says, the offense would seem to be a relatively remote and unlikely occurrence in any case.
I really believe that. I don't think that what you had in the covenant community where people on every street corner brawling with their wives standing there, getting involved and trying to stop it. So it was probably very, very, very minimal to begin with, if ever. And then he goes on to say in this, Old Testament law is in marked contrast with other ancient Near Eastern law, especially Assyrian law, where all kinds of very nasty physical mutilations were prescribed for many offenses.
So in Assyrian law, mutilation was commonplace. Biblical law, this is the only instance. Now again, the eye for the eye ethic, I mean, short of plucking out an eye, this is punitive amputation. This is cutting off a hand. of a particular individual.
Notice it's not ultimately a property crime. She didn't steal a Snickers bar at Walmart, so cut off her hand. Rather, it is a life crime. It has to do with the propagation and destruction of potential life.
So that's the issue that we have here in verses 11 to 12. Now, number four. Some heavy concepts in this passage.
Just Weights and Measures
Number four, pretty cut and dry, the prohibition against unjust weights and measures. A heavy weight would profit in buying. A lighter weight would profit in selling. At the heart of this is honesty, justice, equity, and fair trade.
You don't have differing weights and measures so that you can rip off a covenant community member. You do not rip people off. You have just weights and just measures because it's wrong and it's a violation of God's law to steal from people. It's interesting.
When we drop down in this particular passage in verse 16, all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord your God. Now, obviously, we would call abortion an abomination. We would call sexual perversion an abomination. We would call idolatry an abomination.
We would call pagan cults abomination. God calls an unjust weight and measure an abomination. You see, fiscal policy and financial matters and economy and money and fair trade and just weights and measures really is ethical. The same God who says you shall not murder, the same God who says you shall not commit adultery, is the same God who says you shall not steal.
And when a government authorizes abortion, certainly we should cry out against that government. When a government authorizes euthanasia or same-sex marriage, we should certainly cry out against a government like that. But when a government authorizes and engages in fractional reserve banking, we ought to cry out against them. We ought to oppose unjust weights and measures.
We ought to oppose the violation of the Eighth Commandment right along with the Sixth and the Seventh Commandment. Sometimes Christians put all their eggs in one particular bag and say, if we just fixed this problem. No, the entirety of God's law is being violated. The entirety of God's law is being trashed and desecrated.
The entirety of God's law is being trashed by men. We ought to oppose the violation of all of God's law and not be selective in terms of our dealings in this current world. So there is a prohibition against unjust weights and measures, and then a requirement for just weights and measures. And then notice the purpose.
It's amazing. Verse 15, you shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure, that your days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord your God has given you. What's the implication? Conduct yourself equitably.
Conduct yourself honestly. Conduct yourself in a manner of fair trade in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and it will go well with you. In other words, when you obey the law of God, when you do what the Lord commands, The Lord blesses, He attaches that blessing to obedience in the land. Now certainly, when we get past the book of Deuteronomy, we see that they didn't always do this.
Prophetic Witness Against Unjust Scales
This was being practiced in Amos' day. In fact, you can turn there, Amos chapter 8, just so you can see with your own eyes that this was a real violation that the prophets of Israel had to address on a recurring basis. Amos chapter 8, 4. Hear this, you who swallow up the needy and make the poor of the land fail, saying, when will the new moon be passed that we may sell grain and the Sabbath that we may trade wheat, making the ephah small and the shekel large, falsifying the scales by deceit, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, even sell the bad wheat?
You see, they were exploiting the poor among them and engaging in wickedness and in lawlessness.
Proverbs on Honest Commerce
Turn to Proverbs for just a moment. The book of Proverbs, chapter 11, verse 1. Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight. You see, that reflects what we find here in Deuteronomy chapter 25.
But notice, it doesn't stop there. Go to chapter 16, verse 11 in the book of Proverbs. Chapter 16, verse 11 in the book of Proverbs. Honest weights and scales are the Lord's.
All the weights in the bag are His. Proverbs 20, verse 10. Proverbs 20 verse 10, diverse weights and diverse measures, they are both alike an abomination to the Lord. And then again in chapter 20 verse 23, diverse weights are an abomination to the Lord and dishonest scales are not good.
If you were to read through the Proverbs in one setting, what might you conclude? God hates theft. God despises when men engage in deceit. If you say you are selling a product, then make sure it bears that particular value.
Don't cheat people. Don't rip people off. Do not think that having unjust weights and measures will make you prosperous. It may prosper you in the short term, but God the Lord will most certainly bring judgment to bear upon you.
The law of God speaks to the weights in our bags and to the measures in our homes. We need to deal ethically, we need to deal uprightly, we need to deal honestly, and we need to deal justly in all of our financial dealings and doings, in our commerce, in our buying, and in our selling. And then it's interesting,
Leviticus Parallel and Gospel Ethics
in the book of Leviticus, the parallel passage to this, Leviticus 19.35 and 36, says essentially the same thing. You can't have unjust weights and measures. The reason given in Leviticus 19.36, I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt. I have redeemed you so that you may live in the land.
I didn't redeem you so you could rip one another off. I didn't redeem you so you could cheat one another. I didn't redeem you so you could have unjust weights and measures. I didn't redeem you so you could exploit poor people.
This is the same ethic that we find in the New Testament. You have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Now live like that. Live in a manner that is consistent of the gospel.
You say you are in Christ, don't rip people off. Paul says this in Ephesians 4. Let him who stole, steal no longer. Let him who stole, steal no longer.
But rather let him work hard, and work hard enough so that he can make enough to give to those who have need. So the gospel ethic isn't just stop stealing. The gospel ethic is stop stealing and work. Not just work, stop stealing and work, but stop stealing, work, and work hard so that you can make enough to give to someone who has need.
You see, that is conduct worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. God the Lord redeemed Israel out of the land of Egypt to plant them in the land of Canaan so that they may engage in love to one another within the covenant community. And then I've already mentioned in verse 16 of chapter 25, for all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord your God. And then
Destroying the Amalekites
the last statement, verses 17 to 19, deal with the Amalekites. Remember the treatment you received at the hand of the Amalekites and bought the Amalekites out from the land. And it might cause us to wonder, in a chapter pretty much devoted to love for one another within the covenant community, how does hatred toward the Amalekites square with that? Well, love to one another in the covenant community and hatred of the enemies of God both equal love to God.
So when I'm loving the covenant community and I'm hating God's enemies, then that is an expression of my love to God the Lord. So in verse 17 he says, Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary, and he did not fear God.
Amalek's Wickedness and God's Justice
We learn two things about Amalek here. First, their wicked conduct. Their wicked conduct. Not only did they attack Israel, but who did they attack? the stragglers at the rear.
Who do you think those were? The best soldiers? The strongest men? It was probably the elderly, probably the very young, probably the sick, and probably the pregnant.
They would be the ones that tend to straggle. The strong warriors are up front making sure that anything that's ahead of them, they can take down. The strong warriors are protecting as far as they're able. The people that straggle, or the people that fall behind, or the people that end up in the very back, are the weak ones among them.
So don't take this and say, wow, that's really unkind that God wants Israel to destroy the Amalekites. Lex Talionis applies on a national level as well. Eye for an eye. When you destroy our weak, when you destroy our elderly, when you destroy our babies, when you destroy our pregnant women or our sick, it is righteous under God to send that right back at you.
And it's interesting here that God's law pertains not only to covenant Israel, but to the Amalekites as well. It is fundamental and universal by virtue of the fact that man bears the image of God, that we don't prey upon weak people, that we don't kill pregnant people, that we don't hurt elderly people, that we don't attack young children. That's something the Amalekites should have known. That is a fundamental truth that every human being has written in their hearts, but they sinned against that.
So their utter wickedness and their wicked conduct, and then notice the religious motivation behind it. It says how He met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary, and He did not fear Yahweh. You see, when Amalek doesn't fear Yahweh, he certainly doesn't care about Yahweh's people. There's a religious motivation behind this particular conduct.
The fact that he destroys these weak Israelites is an indicator of his despising and his hatred of the God of Israel. And so God then says, remember them. Therefore, it shall be, verse 19, when the Lord your God has given you rest from your enemies all around, in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess as an inheritance, that you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, you shall not forget. Now, do they do this?
No. What king spared the Amalekites? Does anyone remember? Saul, right?
Saul spared Agag and the Amalekites. That was wrong. We see the Amalekites through the book of Judges. We see the Amalekites during the reign of David.
Ultimately, I think it's 1 Chronicles chapter 4 that indicates the end of the Amalekites, probably under Hezekiah's reign. So Israel did not obey this injunction. They did not remember the treatment they received at the hands of Amalek. Notice in this particular instance, God says, these are my enemies, I want you to take them out accordingly.
God has the prerogative, God has the right, God has the absolute sovereignty to make this declaration. We do not. We can't say, that guy did me harm, I'm gonna destroy him. or blot him out from the face of the earth. When the psalmist says, Do I not hate those who hate thee, O Lord?
He's not crying out against his enemies, he's crying out against God's enemies. When you read the imprecatory Psalms, when they ask the Lord to smash the teeth of their enemies, They are the enemies of the Lord God Almighty. They're not somebody that upset you at the grocery store. They're not a brother or sister at church who forgot to say hi to you on Sunday.
Don't go home and pray imprecatory psalms over the people of God. Don't go home and pray imprecatory psalms over your wife because she burned dinner. You are not to engage in that manner. I'm all for the imprecatory psalms.
I think that it is righteous for us to use them. when we see them quoted in the New Testament, and we see them often quoted in the New Testament, but we need to understand the responsible use of that. It is God's enemies that we are to despise, not our enemies, not the guy who cut us off at Save on Foods. Well, that's a lot in this passage. To be sure, we've gone from proper provision for workers to blotting out Amalekites.
So praise be to God for his word. As I mentioned, chapter 26 is the end in terms of law or application or exposition or amplification of the Decalogue. And then chapters 27 and following, we see covenant renewal. We see the curses and the blessings associated with obedience and disobedience when they come into the land of Canaan.
I'll just close in prayer.
Closing Prayer
Father, we thank you for your word, and we thank you for its clarity, And we thank you for its equity. And we know ultimately, God, this passage teaches us about your holiness and about your righteousness. It teaches us our duty, our responsibility, our privilege as redeemed Christians to treat one another with justice and with equity and with righteousness and with love. We pray that you would put these things into us, God, and cause us to learn these things from your law. cause us to reflect upon the glory of Christ, that one who fulfilled the law, the one who died as a sacrifice and rose again so that we, as lawless men and women, could have everlasting life.
Thank you for salvation by grace. Help us by your spirit to walk according to your word. And we pray in Jesus' name, amen.