Deuteronomy 25

Haystack bible commentary

"Stacks and stacks of commentary...."

==deuteronomy 25:1-3:

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 then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense. Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight.

Jewish law limited a whipping to 40 stripes that the guilty would not “be degraded” or “seem vile” in the sight of his brothers. But the Romans who scourged Jesus would not have cared about Jewish law or sparing a Jew from being degraded or vile in anyone’s sight. Roman scourging was so horrific that Roman citizens were exempt from it. The one scourged was usually stripped and bent over or tied to a post, then beaten by one or more “lictors” who used “flagellums” or “flagrums” - whips with 2 or 3 leather strands about 3 feet long with pieces of bone or lead balls attached every few inches, which would shred the skin, exposing bones and organs. The lictors determined the number of lashes. They weren’t generally supposed to kill the ones whipped, but often they died on the post or shortly afterwards. The loss of blood by Jesus was probably what left him so weak he was unable to carry his cross.

Jewish law limited the stripes so the guilty one would not be “degraded in your sight” or “seem vile unto thee.” Jesus was degraded and made vile in the sight of men. But more significant, he was made despicable in the sight of God:

2 CO 5:21 says that God “made him to be sin,” the most abhorrent, disgusting, despicable thing in God’s sight. In his perfect righteousness God will not even “look at” sin, or tolerate it in his presence, as he says in Habakkuk 1:3 “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong…”
When Jesus took our sin and our scourging, he was degraded both in the sight of God and men. Here’s why he endured such suffering:
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5 Jesus was made vile in the sight of God and man, so we could be made beautiful in God’s sight. He rejoices and exults over us with “gladness” and “loud singing” (Zephaniah 3:17) and he looks on us who believe in Jesus as the apple of his eye, as David prays in Psalm 17:8 “Keep me as the apple of your eye” --The Blazing Center

==deuteronomy 25:4:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

When the oxen were threshing grain they were not allowed to be muzzled. Rather they were allowed to eat their fill of the crop which they had plowed, planted, cultivated, and harvested. This was an act of kindness to creatures who had shared men's labors, but it was much more. Paul asked (I Cor 9:9-10, 13-14), "Doth God take care for the oxen?" RCH Lenski translates it literally as "Is it care of oxen to God?" Were the oxen God's only concern? Rather, says Paul, he said "altogether," or as some commentators prefer to translate it "assuredly" for our sakes. He even repeats the phrase "for our sake" twice.
Because Paul here uses Biblical law regarding rewards due to oxen for their labor, a number of commentators over the years have seen Paul as using the law to create an allegory to make his point regarding wages. But he is doing far more. Paul says the law pertains to "he that ploweth" and "he that thresheth." Paul looks at the law regarding rewards to oxen as a fundamental principle we are to apply to work animals and workmen. "Oxen cannot read, " said Luther. The law was thus never for them even if it worked to their benefit. Oxen cannot be sustained in "the object hoped for." The worker is to partake of the increase his labor made possible. This is true of an ox, an apostle, and all laborers in between. The law said this for our account. Therefore, says Paul, we must understand what it means for us.

F. Godet points out in his commentary that plowing and treading out are not parallel examples of work done in the expectation of reward. Rather, plowing is a hard and painful work in which man must be encouraged by the hope of a bountiful harvest. Threshing, on the other hand, was not such a painful task, especially when the labor was supplied by oxen (threshing could also be done by hand). Threshing was part of the harvest and was thus a time of celebration. The entire harvest process was thus the reward hoped for by the plowman all season long. This is in agreement with Psalm 126:5-6: "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves." The plowman sowed in tears because much of the remainder of his grain had to be cast onto the ground. If the weather or insects destroyed his crop, the bulk of his remaining food was also lost. The oxen, however, could not partake in the joy of harvest. Therefore, they were to be guaranteed their fill of its fruit.
Paul had plowed and sowed at Corinth to establish the church there. He was entitled to partake of the harvest at least in the form of salary. For his own reasons Paul had decided not to accept his due. There were, however, elements in the church who sought to deny Paul not only of his position as a faithful worker but also his very apostlehood. He thus referred to this Mosaic law to remind the church that it had an obligation to remember him as the one who had plowed and planted the seeds of their faith.

==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.

Paul Copan, in his book, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, argues that this is a mistranslation. He points out that the word translated “hand” is actually the word for “palm,” and was also used to refer to the groin. He says the word for “cut off” is not the word for “amputation,” but the word for “cutting, clipping and shaving hair.” He argues that the punishment is a humiliation for the woman humiliating the man–that it calls for the shaving off of the pubic hair, not for the cutting off of her hand. He concludes, “There’s just no linguistic reason to translate the weaker form, i.e, “shave,” as a stronger form, i.e., “amputation.” In this particular case, we’re talking about the open concave region of the groin, and thus a shaving of pubic hair. In short, the woman’s punishment is public humiliation for publicly humiliating the man….” (P. Copan, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, pp. 121-122.)

==deuteronomy 25:29-34:

And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

March 20, 2023: Zain Treadwell wrote: We see here that Esau has been hunting and has just come back in from the field and is in need of some food. After a long day of hunting there’s nothing much better than a hot meal. We’ve all been there before where we’ve had an exhausting day of work just expending energy all day without a meal, and when you finally get home you just want to dig in to anything and everything.
In the summers in high school I worked on a game hunting ranch with my best friend named Dustin and man we worked hard long days under the Texas sun. Our work day started at 7am and we never ate breakfast and our lunch break wasn’t until 12. So we’d spend the morning building fences and feeding animals and by noon we were just about dead. And we lived on this ranch in the middle of nowhere and we lived in little run down RV trailers, and for lunch we would eat a pack of ramen noodles with valentina hot sauce, and a little debbie brownie. And I tell you what eating those ramen noodles out of a styrofoam bowl in a tiny microwave in a rundown trailer is some of the best food I’ve ever had. I’ll eat that meal again and it just isn’t the same, and its probably because I am not near as hungry as I was.
So this is where Esau was at. He felt like he was about to die of starvation, he even says what good is a birthright to me if I’m dead. So he sells his birthright to his brother Jacob in exchange for some soup.
Esau was blinded by the temporal satisfaction of soup to the point that he lost sight of his birthright, which had much more value. He ascribed more worth to a physical desire than to a spiritual blessing. This is Esau’s first step to bitterness. He finds too much worth in things that do not deserve it.
I wonder how often each of us are guilty of something similar. Focusing too much on the temporary. Finding too much value in things of little value. Or maybe the contrast, not finding enough value in the things that are valuable. Maybe there is a sin that the Devil promises satisfaction in, but you’ve got to realize it is only temporary. The only thing that can truly satisfy is Christ. But soup isn’t a sin. So maybe there’s something in your life that is stealing away from the things that truly matter.
You must have an eternal focus rather than a temporal focus.