← Back to sermon library

Okay, 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. 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, 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 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, 
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 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. 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. 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. 
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. 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, 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 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. 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. 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.