Here
is, I. A law to moderate the scourging of malefactors, ver. 1-3. II. A law
in favour of the ox the treads out the corn, ver. 4. III. For the disgracing
of him that refused to marry his brother's widow, ver. 5-10. IV. For the
punishment of an immodest woman, ver. 11, 12. V. For just weights and
measures, ver. 13-16. VI. For the destroying of Amalek, ver. 17, &c.
|
Stripes
Not to Exceed Forty.
|
B.
C. 1451.
|
|
|
1 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. 2 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. 3
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. 4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when
he treadeth out the corn.
Here is, I. A direction to the judges in scourging malefactors, v.
1-3. 1. It is here supposed that, if a man be charged with a crime, the
accuser and the accused (Actor and Reus) should be brought
face to face before the judges, that the controversy may be determined. 2.
If a man were accused of a crime, and the proof fell short, so that the
charge could not be made out against him by the evidence, then he was to be
acquitted: "Thou shalt justify the righteous," that is,
"him that appears to the court to be so." If the accusation be
proved, then the conviction of the accused is a justification of the
accuser, as righteous in the prosecution. 3. If the accused were found
guilty, judgment must be given against him: "Thou shalt condemn the
wicked;" for to justify the wicked is as much an abomination to the
Lord as it is to condemn the righteous, Prov. xvii. 15. 4. If the crime were
not made capital by the law, then the criminal must be beaten. A great many
precepts we have met with which have not any particular penalty annexed to
them, the violation of most of which, according to the constant practice of
the Jews, was punished by scourging, from which no person's rank or quality
did exempt him if he were a delinquent, but with this proviso, that he
should never be upbraided with it, nor should it be looked upon as leaving
any mark of infamy or disgrace upon him. The directions here given for the
scourging of criminals are, (1.) That it be done solemnly; not tumultuously
through the streets, but in open court before the judge's face, and with so
much deliberation as that the stripes might be numbered. The Jews say that
while execution was in doing the chief justice of the court read with a loud
voice Deut. xxviii. 58, 59, and xxix. 9, and concluded with those words (Ps.
lxxviii. 38), But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity.
Thus it was made a sort of religious act, and so much the more likely to
reform the offender himself and to be a warning to others. (2.) That it be
done in proportion to the crime, according to his fault, that some
crimes might appear, as they are, more heinous than others, the criminal
being beaten with many stripes, to which perhaps there is an
allusion, Luke xii. 47, 48. (3.) That how great soever the crime were the
number of stripes should never exceed forty, v. 3. Forty save
one was the common usage, as appears, 2 Cor. xi. 24. It seems, they
always gave Paul as many stripes as ever they gave to any malefactor
whatsoever. They abated one for fear of having miscounted (though one of the
judges was appointed to number the stripes), or because they would never go
to the utmost rigour, or because the execution was usually done with a whip
of three lashes, so that thirteen stripes (each one being counted for three)
made up thirty-nine, but one more by that reckoning would have been
forty-two. The reason given for this is, lest thy brother should seem
vile unto thee. He must still be looked upon as a brother (2
Thess. iii. 15), and his reputation as such was preserved by this merciful
limitation of his punishment. It saves him from seeming vile to his
brethren, when God himself by his law takes this care of him. Men must not
be treated as dogs; nor must those seem vile in our sight to whom, for aught
we know, God may yet give grace to make them precious in his sight.
II. A charge to husbandmen not to hinder their cattle from eating when they
were working, if meat were within their reach, v. 4. This instance of
the beast that trod out the corn (to which there is an allusion in that of
the prophet, Hos. x. 11) is put for all similar instances. That which makes
this law very remarkable above its fellows (and which countenances the like
application of other such laws) is that it is twice quoted in the New
Testament to show that it is the duty of the people to give their ministers
a comfortable maintenance, 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, and 1 Tim. v. 17, 18. It
teaches us in the letter of it to make much of the brute-creatures that
serve us, and to allow them not only the necessary supports for their life,
but the advantages of their labour; and thus we must learn not only to be
just, but kind, to all that are employed for our good, not only to maintain
but to encourage them, especially those that labour among us in the word and
doctrine, and so are employed for the good of our better part.
|
Marriage
of a Brother's Wife.
|
B.
C. 1451.
|
|
|
5 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 a husband's
brother unto her. 6 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. 7 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. 8 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; 9 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. 10 And his name
shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
11 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:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
Here is, I. The law settled concerning the marrying of the brother's widow.
It appears from the story of Judah's family that this had been an ancient
usage (Gen. xxxviii. 8), for the keeping up of distinct families. The case
put is a case that often happens, of a man's dying without issue, it may be
in the prime of his time, soon after his marriage, and while his brethren
were yet so young as to be unmarried. Now in this case, 1. The widow was not
to marry again into any other family, unless all the relations of her
husband did refuse her, that the estate she was endowed with might not be
alienated. 2. The husband's brother, or next of kin, must marry her, partly
out of respect to her, who, having forgotten her own people and her father's
house, should have all possible kindness shown her by the family into which
she was married; and partly out of respect to the deceased husband, that
though he was dead and gone he might not be forgotten, nor lost out of the
genealogies of his tribe; for the first-born child, which the brother or
next kinsman should have by the widow, should be denominated from him that
was dead, and entered in the genealogy as his child, v. 5, 6. Under
that dispensation we have reason to think men had not so clear and certain a
prospect of living themselves on the other side death as we have now, to
whom life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel; and
therefore they could not but be the more desirous to live in their
posterity, which innocent desire was in some measure gratified by this law,
an expedient being found out that, though a man had no child by his wife,
yet his name should not be put out of Israel, that is, out of the
pedigree, or, which is equivalent, remain there under the brand of
childlessness. The Sadducees put a case to our Saviour upon this law, with a
design to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection by it (Matt. xxii. 24,
&c.), perhaps insinuating that there was no need of maintaining the
immortality of the soul and a future state, since the law had so well
provided for the perpetuating of men's names and families in the world. But,
3. If the brother, or next of kin, declined to do this good office to the
memory of him that was gone, what must be done in that case? Why, (1.) He
shall not be compelled to do it, v. 7. If he like her not, he is at
liberty to refuse her, which, some think, was not permitted in this case
before this law of Moses. Affection is all in all to the comfort of the
conjugal relation; this is a thing which cannot be forced, and therefore the
relation should not be forced without it. (2.) Yet he shall be publicly
disgraced for not doing it. The widow, as the person most concerned for the
name and honour of the deceased, was to complain to the elders of his
refusal; if he persist in it, she must pluck off his shoe, and spit in
his face, in open court (or, as the Jewish doctors moderate it, spit before
his face), thus to fasten a mark of infamy upon him, which was to remain
with his family after him, v. 8-10. Note, Those justly suffer in
their own reputation who do not do what they ought to preserve the name and
honour of others. He that would not build up his brother's house deserved to
have this blemish put upon his own, that it should be called the house of
him that had his shoe loosed, in token that he deserved to go barefoot.
In the case of Ruth we find this law executed (Ruth iv. 7), but because,
upon the refusal of the next kinsman, there was another ready to perform the
duty of a husband's brother, it was that other that plucked off the shoe,
and not the widow--Boaz, and not Ruth.
II. A law for the punishing of an immodest woman, v. 11, 12. The
woman that by the foregoing law was to complain against her husband's
brother for not marrying her, and to spit in his face before the elders,
needed a good measure of assurance; but, lest the confidence which that law
supported should grow to an excess unbecoming the sex, here is a very severe
but just law to punish impudence and immodesty. 1. The instance of it is
confessedly scandalous to the highest degree. A woman could not do it unless
she were perfectly lost to all virtue and honour. 2. The occasion is such as
might in part excuse it; it was to help her husband out of the hands of one
that was too hard for him. Now if the doing of it in a passion, and with
such a good intention, was to be so severely punished, much more when it was
done wantonly and in lust. 3. The punishment was that her hand should be cut
off; and the magistrates must not pretend to be more merciful than God: Thy
eye shall not pity her. Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he
commands us to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is
an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon
the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and
therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes.
|
Amalek
to Be Destroyed.
|
B.
C. 1451.
|
|
|
13 Thou shalt not have
in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. 14 Thou shalt
not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. 15
But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just
measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which
the LORD
thy God giveth thee. 16 For all that do such things, and
all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD
thy God. 17 Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when
ye were come forth out of Egypt; 18 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. 19 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.
Here is, I. A law against deceitful weights and measures: they must not only
not use them, but they must not have them, not have them in the bag, not
have them in the house (v. 13, 14); for, if they had them, they would
be strongly tempted to use them. They must not have a great weight and
measure to buy by and a small one to sell by, for that was to cheat both
ways, when either was bad enough; as we read of those that made the ephah
small, in which they measured the corn they sold, and the shekel
great, by which they weighed the money they received for it, Amos viii. 5.
But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, v. 15. That
which is the rule of justice must itself be just; if that be otherwise, it
is a constant cheat. This had been taken care of before, Lev. xix. 35, 36.
This law is enforced with two very good reasons:-- 1. That justice and
equity will bring down upon us the blessing of God. The way to have our days
lengthened, and to prosper, is to be just and fair in all our dealings Honesty
is the best policy. 2. That fraud and injustice will expose us to the
curse of God, v. 16. Not only unrighteousness itself, but all that do
unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord. And miserable is that
man who is abhorred by his Maker. How hateful, particularly, all the arts of
deceit are to God, Solomon several times observes, Prov. xi. 1; xx. 10, 23;
and the apostle tells us that the Lord is the avenger of all such as
overreach and defraud in any matter, 1 Thess. iv. 6.
II. A law for the rooting out of Amalek. Here is a just weight and a just
measure, that, as Amalek had measured to Israel, so it should be measure
to Amalek again.
1. The mischief Amalek did to Israel must be here remembered, v. 17,
18. When it was first done it was ordered to be recorded (Exod. xvii.
14-16), and here the remembrance of it is ordered to be preserved, not in
personal revenge (for that generation which suffered by the Amalekites was
gone, so that those who now lived, and their posterity, could not have any
personal resentment of the injury), but in a zeal for the glory of God
(which was insulted by the Amalekites), that throne of the Lord
against which the hand of Amalek was stretched out. The carriage of the
Amalekites towards Israel is here represented, (1.) As very base and
disingenuous. They had no occasion at all to quarrel with Israel, nor did
they give them any notice, by a manifesto or declaration of war; but took
them at an advantage, when they had just come out of the house of bondage,
and, for aught that appeared to them, were only going to sacrifice to God
in the wilderness. (2.) As very barbarous and cruel; for they smote
those that were more feeble, whom they should have succoured. The greatest
cowards are commonly the most cruel; while those that have the courage of a
man will have the compassion of a man. (3.) As very impious and profane:
they feared not God. If they had had any reverence for the majesty of the
God of Israel, which they saw a token of in the cloud, or any dread of his
wrath, which they lately heard of the power of over Pharaoh, they durst not
have made this assault upon Israel. Well, here was the ground of the
quarrel: and it shows how God takes what is done against his people as done
against himself, and that he will particularly reckon with those that
discourage and hinder young beginners in religion, that (as Satan's agents)
set upon the weak and feeble, either to divert them or to disquiet them, and
offend his little ones.
2. This mischief must in due time be revenged, v. 19. When their wars
were finished, by which they were to settle their kingdom and enlarge their
coast, then they must make war upon Amalek (v. 19), not merely
to chase them, but to consume them, to blot out the remembrance of Amalek.
It was an instance of God's patience that he deferred the vengeance so long,
which should have led the Amalekites to repentance; yet an instance of
fearful retribution that the posterity of Amalek, so long after, were
destroyed for the mischief done by their ancestors to the Israel of God,
that all the world might see, and say, that he who toucheth them toucheth
the apple of his eye. It was nearly 400 years after this that Saul was
ordered to put this sentence in execution (1 Sam. xv.), and was rejected of
God because he did not do it effectually, but spared some of that devoted
nation, in contempt, not only of the particular orders he received from
Samuel, but of this general command here given by Moses, which he could not
be ignorant of. David afterwards made some destruction of them; and the
Simeonites, in Hezekiah's time, smote the rest that remained (1 Chron. iv.
43); for when God judges he will overcome.
