Chapter 25 Doing What Is Truly Right And Avoiding Shame.
This chapter continues with the idea of fairness, and the thought of consideration and doing right and runs throughout, commencing with the requirement for true justice and a fair hearing with a limitation on beatings, and dealing with not muzzling the ox, surrogate motherhood, decency and right behaviour when quarrelling, and correct weights and measures. There is an emphasis on shaming for those who fail (‘vile' - Deuteronomy 25:3; ‘spit in his face' - Deuteronomy 25:9; ‘cut off her hand' - Deuteronomy 25:12; ‘abomination' Deuteronomy 25:16). Thus a beating shames the recipient, and must not therefore be too heavy (Deuteronomy 25:3). The woman refused her Levirate rights shames her brother-in-law by spitting in his face (Deuteronomy 25:9-10). The violent and unscrupulous woman is to openly bear her shame before all, for they would be able to tell from the mutilation what she had done (Deuteronomy 25:12). False weights and measures are an abomination, they bring shame on those who use them (Deuteronomy 25:16). It concludes with the fate of Amalek on which comes the greatest shame of all.
(We have here ‘thou, thee' all the way through).
Judgment Is To Be Righteous Judgment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3).
As we have seen this connects up with the previous chapter in the analysis of Deuteronomy 24:16 to Deuteronomy 25:3. And yet it also connects up in thought with what follows. A reminder that we must nor straitjacket Moses' thought or delivery.
‘ If there be a controversy between men, and they come for judgment, and the judges judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.'
Right justice was so important that Moses, like any good preacher repeated the idea a number of times deu (Deuteronomy 1:15-18; Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Deuteronomy 17:8-13; Deuteronomy 19:15-21). Here he summarised the situation quite simply by declaring that in any controversy that came for judgment which the judges judge, they must have only one aim in mind, to declare righteous those who are righteous, and condemn those who are unrighteous, without fear or favour.
We are probably to see that one of the combatants may well have charged the other with something that deserved a beating. (Imprisonment at that time was often not an option). A guilty verdict would mean the offender was beaten, a not guilty verdict might see the accuser beaten if he was seen as a false witness (Deuteronomy 19:16-21),
The Public Beating (Deuteronomy 2-3)
‘ And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his wickedness, by number. Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed it, lest, if he should exceed it, and beat him above this with many stripes, then your brother should seem vile to you.'
But any punishment must be reasonable and controlled. If a man was to be beaten the judge must cause him to lie down, and then he would be beaten in his presence, probably with a rod (Exodus 21:20), the number of stripes determined by what was seen as his deserts. But the number of stripes must not be more than forty under any circumstances. Forty stripes as a maximum parallel the Middle Assyrian laws and were probably a recognised standard of what a man could bear at that time, although earlier the Code of Hammurabi had allowed sixty.
Compare here Proverbs 10:13; Proverbs 19:29; Proverbs 26:3. This was the Egyptian method of punishment as depicted on monuments where the guilty party was laid flat on the ground, and being held fast by the hands and feet, received their strokes in the presence of the judge
We notice here the concern for justice with a mixture of mercy. Being prone rather than strung up would ensure that the beating was more limited in power, the judge's presence would ensure fair play, the fact that he had to be present would, apart from the most heartless, hopefully make him consider his sentence more carefully, the strokes were to be counted, and they must not number more than forty. Much later on they were limited to thirty nine in case of wrong counting, but the means of application became more vicious. This was comparatively compassionate.
If more than forty stripes were given it would mean that they were looking on their fellow-tribesman as vile and worthy of humiliation, which would be contrary to the covenant, and therefore not to be allowed. The dignity of an Israelite was considered to be important, and the purpose of the punishment was restoration to good covenant citizenship.