Deuteronomy Chapter 25
More Laws on Various Subjects
A. Two laws to protect criminals and animals.
1. A limit on corporal punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3).
“If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. 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 fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.”
Civil authority in Israel was required to “justify the righteous and condemn the wicked,” which is the foundational purpose of all government. Romans 13:4 affirms this same principle in the New Testament, “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain…” God acknowledges that some men are wicked and deserving of punishment. Corporal punishment was lawful, but it was regulated; it had to be done “before his face,” meaning in the presence of the judge to ensure fairness and prevent cruelty. The limit of forty stripes guarded human dignity, so that justice would be firm yet not dehumanizing. To exceed forty stripes would make the offender “vile” or degraded in the eyes of the people, thus the law preserved both justice and the image of the offender as a “brother.” Later Jewish tradition limited the number to thirty-nine stripes to avoid accidentally breaking the law through miscount. Paul referred to this when he wrote, “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one” (2 Corinthians 11:24). Modern justice systems often claim moral superiority to biblical law yet fail to produce safer communities; God’s law balanced righteousness, accountability, and restraint far better than many human legal systems do today.
2. The command to not muzzle the ox (Deuteronomy 25:4).
“Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.”
This simple command reveals God’s concern for both justice and mercy, extending even to working animals. In ancient agricultural practice, oxen would tread grain to separate the kernels from the husk, and it would be cruel to prevent them from eating some of the grain as they worked. This law teaches humane treatment toward animals, but it also contains a broader principle of fairness: the laborer deserves to partake of the fruit of his labor. Paul directly applies this verse to ministers of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10, he writes, “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written…” Likewise, 1 Timothy 5:18 says, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” The principle is clear—those who serve, whether animal or human, should not be deprived of rightful provision. While the text applies directly to animals, its theological application extends to God’s insistence on equity, generosity, and honor toward those who labor in His service.
B. Two Laws Dealing with Family Matters
1. The Marriage Obligation of a Surviving Brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–10).
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.”
This command describes what is called levirate marriage (from the Latin levir, meaning “brother-in-law”). It was designed to preserve the name, lineage, and inheritance of a deceased man who died without children. In Israel, dying without a descendant was considered a severe tragedy, for it meant loss of family legacy, loss of inheritance rights, and disappearance of that man’s name from the covenant people. Therefore, if brothers lived together and one died childless, the surviving brother was obligated to marry the widow and “perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.” The firstborn of this union was legally considered the son of the deceased, not the biological father, “that his name be not put out of Israel.” This protected tribal inheritances (Numbers 36:7), and upheld God’s covenant structure within family and land.
This practice was not isolated to Israel alone; similar customs existed among the Hittites, Assyrians, and various cultures in Asia, Africa, and South America. Yet in Israel, it carried a unique theological dimension—family order and land inheritance were tied to the promises of God. God had already provided for daughters to inherit if no sons existed (Numbers 27:1–8), but this law applied specifically when a brother could preserve his brother’s name through offspring.
If a man refused this duty, the widow could appeal publicly to the elders at the city gate. Before witnesses, she would remove his sandal and spit before his face, declaring, “So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.” The removal of the sandal symbolized his refusal to walk in his covenant obligation and relinquishment of any claim in his brother’s inheritance. His family would then be given a lasting mark of shame—“The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” The disgrace lay not in remaining unmarried to the widow, but in rejecting his duty to preserve his brother’s name. This was a public testimony that he valued personal convenience over family loyalty and covenant responsibility.
The most famous example of levirate-like responsibility is found in the Book of Ruth. Boaz acted as kinsman redeemer for Ruth, the widow of Mahlon. When the nearer relative refused, Boaz took his sandal in a legal exchange before witnesses (Ruth 4:7–10), fulfilling the heart of this law. This act preserved the name of the deceased, and through that lineage came King David and eventually Christ (Matthew 1:5–6).
This law reveals how seriously God takes family, inheritance, covenant identity, and loyalty. In a culture that increasingly abandons duty in favor of personal freedom, this passage stands as a rebuke. God values legacy, family honor, and self-sacrifice for the sake of others.
2. Wives Forbidden to Interfere in Their Husband’s Fights (Deuteronomy 25:11–12).
“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.”
This law addressed a specific and extreme situation—two men are engaged in physical combat, and the wife of one intervenes in a dishonorable and intimate way, seizing the opponent “by the secrets,” meaning his genitals. This was viewed not only as indecent, but as a violent threat to a man’s ability to bear children, preserve his lineage, and fulfill God’s command to be fruitful. In ancient Israel, the ability to produce descendants was directly tied to inheritance, covenant promises, and the continuation of one’s name in Israel. For this reason, an attack on a man’s reproductive organs was seen as an attack on his future, his family line, and his covenant identity. The punishment God commanded was severe and uncompromising: “Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.”
This severity underscores multiple principles. First, God demands modesty and honor in all conduct, even in urgent or emotional situations. The wife’s motive—defending her husband—did not justify the indecency or excessive bodily harm. Second, God placed high value on protecting life, inheritance, and generational continuity. As some scholars note, this punishment likely served as a legal precedent for similar offenses that endangered reproduction, violated modesty, or brought shame into public conduct. This was not about prohibiting a wife from helping her husband, but about forbidding a method that was disgraceful, aggressive, and destructive to lineage.
Matthew Poole noted that this act was severely judged “partly because of the great mischief she did to him, both to his person and posterity… and partly to deter all women from immodest and impudent carriages, and to secure that modesty which is indeed the guardian of all virtues.” Israelite culture viewed modesty as foundational to moral order; to cross that boundary in public was not excused by emotion or loyalty. God’s law was meant to restrain immodesty, prevent humiliation, and maintain public decency among His covenant people.
Furthermore, this passage illustrates an important legal principle in God’s law: pity must never override justice when God has clearly spoken. The phrase “thine eye shall not pity her” appears in other laws involving capital crimes or severe offenses (Deuteronomy 19:13, 21:9). Mercy is a divine virtue, yet misplaced mercy—mercy at the expense of righteousness—is injustice. In this case, the preservation of dignity, generational legacy, and moral order is upheld above personal emotion.
C. Two Laws Commanding Justice
1. Honest Weights and Measures (Deuteronomy 25:13–16).
“Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
God demands absolute honesty in all business dealings. Using “divers weights” meant having one heavy weight to buy with (to get more) and a lighter one to sell with (to give less). This was deliberate fraud disguised as fairness. Such acts were not viewed as minor infractions or clever business practices—they were called an abomination to the Lord. The same word is used for idolatry and gross immorality, showing that economic dishonesty is not a small sin but a violation of God’s holiness and justice. God tied the nation’s prosperity and longevity in the land directly to moral integrity in everyday transactions. Proverbs 11:1 echoes this principle, “A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.” Likewise, Leviticus 19:35–36 commands, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.” God is just, therefore His people must reflect His character in commerce, contracts, and private dealings. To cheat another in weights or measures is to deny the fear of God and to corrupt society at its most basic level.
2. Justice Against Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:17–19).
“Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.”
Israel was commanded to remember Amalek not for vengeance but for justice. The Amalekites attacked Israel shortly after the Exodus (Exodus 17:8–16), targeting the weak, the elderly, and the stragglers—those who could not defend themselves. This was an act of cowardice and cruelty, and Scripture says plainly, “he feared not God.” God declared perpetual war against Amalek because their attack was ultimately against God’s covenant people and therefore against God Himself. Moses, with the help of Aaron and Hur, lifted his hands in intercession while Joshua fought in the valley, and God granted victory. Yet the command to destroy Amalek entirely would not be fulfilled until Israel was settled and “at rest” in the land.
This command was later given to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:2–3, where God said, “I remember that which Amalek did to Israel… now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have.” Saul partially obeyed, sparing King Agag and the best of the livestock, and because of this disobedience, God removed him from being king (1 Samuel 15:22–23). Centuries later, an Amalekite descendant named Haman attempted to exterminate the Jews in the Book of Esther, proving that incomplete obedience leaves open the door to future destruction.
Many Bible teachers see Amalek as a spiritual picture of the flesh—the sinful nature—which attacks when the believer is weak, shows no fear of God, and must be completely dealt with or it will rise again. Galatians 5:17 says, “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh… so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” Just as Amalek was to be blotted out entirely, so the flesh must not be negotiated with or spared.
