Deuteronomy 25:1-19
Q.1. How were disputes to be dealt with? What limitations were placed on flogging to keep it a punishment, and not vengeance? – (Dt.25:1-3, 11-12 c.f. Rom.12:17-19)
No one had the right to beat someone else in vengeance, because vengeance is God’s prerogative (see Rom.12:17-19). Nevertheless, it was the role of judges – to justify the righteous and condemn the wicked (Dt.25:1). This included the imposing of punishment of up to forty beatings. Paul testified – five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes (2 Cor.11:24). In this, the Jews went by the Book. Corporal punishment was seen by God to be a deterrent to crime, and a satisfaction for the injustice suffered by victims and their loved ones. Today, in man’s wisdom, the society often protects the criminal, thus adding more pain to the victims and their families.
Q.2. How was the family inheritance protected in the Promised Land? Why was it a shame to refuse to raise up a child for a deceased brother? – (Dt.25:5-10 c.f. Gen.38:6-11)
Israel was to enter a ‘Promised’ Land that would be its inheritance. The fulfillment of God’s promises to bless and curse Israel, would be a visible sign to the nations, that God is a promise-keeping God. After the conquest of the Promised Land, the land was apportioned to the twelve tribes. Each Israelite man was given a parcel of land as the family inheritance within their tribal lands. The maintenance of that inheritance was achieved by their descendants from generation to generation. It was important that children be produced, in order to keep the family’s entitlement. It was also important for a brother to perform his duty according to the levirate laws – … so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel (Dt.25:6). To refuse to raise up a child for a deceased relative was a terrible shame. This refusal was to be exposed by the elders of his city (see Dt.25:8). God had established the Levirate Law amongst the children of Israel, when He took the life of Onan who had refused to honour this practice with Tamar who later, in the New Testament, was included in the family line of Jesus (see Gen.38:8-10 c.f. Mt.1:1-3).
Q.3. Why were Israelites to treat their animals and others with generosity and justice? Why were the Amalekites to be sworn enemies? – (Dt.25:4, 13-19 c.f. Ex.17:8-16)
An animal used for threshing the grain was not to be kept from eating the grain. If this applied to animals, how much more should it be applied to God’s servants? (see Prov.12:10; 1 Cor.9:8-14; 1 Tim.5:17-18). Fairness and generosity were to be extended in all their dealings with one another. The Amalekites were related to Esau, so were distant relatives of Israel (see Gen.36:9-12). However, their arrogant attitude towards God, as revealed in their opposition towards God’s people, was an affront to Him. It was unforgivable (see Dt.25:19 c.f. Ex.17:14-16). There is an irrational hatred toward Israel by Esau’s descendants until this day.