Chapter 25
Says that if two men dispute in court, and the one found guilty needs a beating, that beating takes place right there, in front of the priest/judge, and that no more than 40 stripes can be given. To go further is to degrade the guilty, not just to punish them. More than forty is not rehabilitative.
Then vs 4 is just kind of stuck in there from nowhere:
4 "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. [Deu 25:4 ESV] This is quoted in the NT. Must have been mentioned earlier. MSB note though, mentions references to this verse in three places in the NT but no other OT passage. This one little thing, seemingly at random, but quoted three times in the NT. All three times by Paul. Maybe a favorite verse of his as a traveling preacher?
2021 - I just can't help but think there is something to this that I am not seeing. It comes right after the guilty man being punished before the judge who sentenced him. Could it be about the judge? He is allowed to have his say when he pronounces sentence? Or about the guilty man, who gets to yell and complain and call the judge names during the carrying out? Hmm....The judge must be present, and the guilty cannot be silenced during punishment. This sort of has a ring to it. I need to compare this interpretation and see if it would apply to the way Paul uses it those three times in the NT. (1Co 9:9, 1Ti 5:18, 2Ti 2:6).
2023 - The 1Co reference is about a lot more than that one verse. The majority of the chapter is Paul defending himself because people have said he is not entitled to payment for his work. Indeed, he says he has NEVER taken payment, but instead works at his own trade while he is also preaching, and that he should not be denied that either. The "generality" of this verse in Deu 25, as I see it, is that whatever work you are doing, you ought to be allowed to support yourself by that work - you ought to receive some of the same "profit" as the one who set you doing the work. An ox is processing grain into a state more profitable than before, so the ox should receive of the processed grain. Paul says he ought to be allowed to profit materially from his providing spiritual teaching. That is, he is working for those who want to hear the word, and they all make a living, so shouldn't he also be allowed to make a living from his preaching to them. So...does this have anything at all that ties it to what came before - to how many licks the guilty man ought to receive? Looking at Paul's explanation I'd say no, unless Paul is reversing the teaching. The 1Ti reference seems to be a brief argument for paying elders and deacons who do enough work at teaching to deserve payment. This would seem a reference about those who are basically church staff, to the extent that they have no other job, getting paid for the work they do for the church. Sunday School teachers? Yes...but not if their teaching is random or for entertainment. I would think this applies to an elder or deacon who teaches church history and government to new members. A staff position. Then this last one from 2Ti: 6 It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. [2Ti 2:6 ESV]. Not sure that even ties back to Deut. A stretch I think. The 2Ti reference seems to be just a sort of general principle not necessarily tied to a quote in Deut. The verse before says athletes only win if they compete fairly. That's not in Deuteronomy! Really, only the 1Co reference ties unarguably to Deuteronomy. And if you read Deuteronomy 22-25, it is all jumping around quite a bit...but even so...this ox muzzling thing still seems quite random. Perhaps that is the point. It is there to make you hit the brakes and consider the principle upon which it is based. It is "stuck in" a random place so that what seems to be minor point must be elevated to a higher priority. Leaving it here again. Apparently, whatever its real reason for being here, it pulls me up short every time I read it.
2024 - More on this section. Look how it starts:
1 "If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, [Deu 25:1 ESV]. First, there are two significantly different interpretations of this verse. One group is like this, with the implication that this is about disputes that end up in court, presumably because they could not be resolved otherwise. The other interpretation says that disputes ought to be resolved in court. As in this rendering: 1 "If there is a dispute between men, they are to go to court, and the judges will hear their case. They will clear the innocent and condemn the guilty. [Deu 25:1 CSB]. This is also very close to how the Jewish Study Bible words it. Perhaps best is the NASB95: 1 "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, [Deu 25:1 NASB95]. IF they go to court. Given the consequences to which the loser will be exposed, I would see avoidance of court as a better strategy. In any case, there seems to be no condemnation of those who can't settle their differences. Rather than come to blows with each other, court is best. This contrasts with Paul's teaching in the NT where he says brothers ought to bring their problems before the church rather than go to civil court. In Deuteronomy, those were one and the same.
2024 - And then the next line is "You are not to muzzle an ox...". Don't beat your brother with too many strikes...and don't muzzle an ox when it is working"...and If brothers live together, and one of them dies childless...
The muzzle thing seems so very out of place here. What is the connection, either to what went before or what comes after? Another year and I still don't see how this fits, and it is so without context that for Paul to quote it three times is astounding! A verse like this can be claimed to mean just about anything we want it to mean. So maybe next year...
Levirate Marriage. This is important in the genealogies of Christ in the NT. I don't remember the specifics, but have read about them.
A brother is to provide an heir for his brother by marrying the brother's widow. To not do so was to bring shame on your house. Only the first son of this union with the brother of a dead man was dedicated to the lost brother, to perpetuate that lineage. Subsequent children were the second brother's children, and carried on their father's name. In the genealogy, there is a Levirate marriage that explains one of the "skips" as it were.
2024 - Hmm...then we get another section that seems to be completely isolated from the rest of the context. If a woman grabs a man's privates to help her husband get away from him, she gets her hand cut off, and this without pity. This comes right after Levirate marriage. In my hermeneutic, you just don't build too much doctrine around these contextually arid passages. I wouldn't argue with Paul about what the ox passage means...but I wouldn't expand it to cover as many things as he does in 1Co 9 either.
16 For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God. [Deu 25:16 ESV]
This is the conclusion of the rules about having just weights and measures. Those who cheat others by falsifying the standard are abomination to God. This principal would apply also, IMHO, to selling a used car that has a hidden problem, a house that is riddled with termites, or a gun with a bent firing pin. All these things represent something to be accurate and true and in workable condition, but they are not. Think how many laws we have on the books these days to prevent such cheating. How many are employed to calibrate gasoline pumps? How many consumer protection agencies and organizations to we have? All we need is this one law, enforced without prejudice. It covers everything. The thing about unjust weights and measures is that having the tools to cheat others indicates the intention, and the practice, and the habit of cheating others. These unfair weights and balances represent a lifestyle of injustice toward others, a daily practice of sin, rather than abhorrence of sin. This is about putting greed ahead of righteousness.
2021 - It ends with an admonition to not forget what Amalek did to them, by cutting off their tail. He apparently attacked the rear of the Israelites as they moved. He killed those with problems, those lagging behind, probably for good reason. He attacked the helpless like a coward would instead of attacking the main body. Need to go back and re-read that. (Ex 17:9-16, but it is not obvious that they cut off the tail, so this is new information. The story is where Joshua and Caleb had to hold up Moses' arms in order for Israel to prevail, not about how Amalek provoked them to turn and fight.).