The Ethics of Mercy

Intro

We have arrived at the conclusion of Moses’ lengthy section addressing specific scenarios in the life of the nation of Israel. He has been speaking into the life of the nation with pastoral wisdom, expounding the laws, commands, and statutes given by God at Mount Sinai.

We have seen that each command teaches us something about the character of God, the distinctiveness of Israel, and the fulfillment of Christ.

So tonight, we want to consider the final 6 commands as Moses ends the fourth of his five sections in this sermon.

Command #1 - Concerning punishment

Verses 1-3 concern the punishment of a wicked man. We have seen up to this point 3 distinct instances where Moses has ordained officers or leaders of the nation to provide wise rule over the people. 16:18-20, 17:8, and 19:17-19, in the section we titled Righteous Rulers, provide the basis for the role of the judges or officers here in this text.

The scenario is basic: a legal dispute comes before the rulers and one party is deemed innocent and the other guilty. The guilty is man is found worthy of being beaten.

Now let’s pause here and consider this. Nowhere else in the Old Testament is a scourging as a form of punishment commanded. It is unique to Deuteronomy 25. Interestingly, there is only one record in the entire Old Testament of this law actually being carried out, when the officials under the reign of Zedekiah beat the prophet Jeremiah when they arrested him wrongly right before the second wave of exile when Judah was carried off to Babylon.

Interestingly enough, in the New Testament, we find beating, flogging, or scourging, a much more common form of punishment. All three synoptic gospels have record of Jesus being flogged before His crucifixion. We know that the apostles and other believers were beaten in the book of Acts, and Paul gives record of 5 beatings he received from the Jews in 2 Corinthians 11.

Additionally, during this time, beatings were a common form of punishment, and were typically exacted against those who had committed some sort of crime but were not found worthy of capital punishment, yet the crime was too severe to warrant a mere fine. History shows us that the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Turks, in ancient times, utilized flogging as a form of punishment. Now you might say, I thought Israel was to be distinct? Why are they implementing these types of punishment, seemingly scalped off the pagan nations?

They are to be distinct. Let me explain the distinctions. There are 3.

The flogging is to take place in the presence of the ruler. This is to prevent a faceless, heartless assistant from executing the sentence without any oversight. Additionally, it brings a sense of sobriety to the judge. As the perpetrator is flogged, the judge must take part so that they understand the weight and gravity of the ruling they have just passed down.

The flogging is not to exceed 40 strokes. Common knowledge in those days was that any more than 40 strokes of the rod would either kill a man or leave him permanently lame or crippled. The goal was discipline for the purpose of correction, not permanent harm.

The flogging is not to be done out of hatred. Some translations are a little rocky here, and that sometimes causes Bible students such as ourselves to miss the point here. The idea here is that the punishment not arise out of hatred, or result in hatred. The word there degrade means to be held in contempt or looked down upon. In other words, the punishment shouldn’t change because of public opinion about the guilty party, and public opinion about the guilty party shouldn’t change because of the punishment.

So what’s the point here? Three things, in keeping with our three interpretive categories for these commands:

God is a God of mercy. He commands restraint as a reflection of His own restraint. God’s wrath is not impulsive. We know that God is impassible, in other words He doesn’t operate out of passion. God’s emotions, as it were, do not influence His justice. God is a God of wrath, but not a God of rage. Despite what popular Christian music would teach you, God is a God of justice, but that justice is not reckless. Which is why...

Israel is to abide by an ethic of mercy. Israel is to be merciful to others as God is merciful to them. They are to keep these restraints in mind and in practice so that they might be known and seen for their mercy, not their wrath. But in the most important trial in the history of the nation, they failed to abide by this.

Christ fulfills this part of Deuteronomy in reverse, much in the same way that He fulfilled the command regarding the slain person in chapter 21 in reverse. The Jewish officials disregarded this command in all three ways during Jesus’ trial. Look at the actions of the rulers. They justified the wicked and condemned the righteous, by demanding that Jesus be crucified and Barabbas be released. The condemned man Jesus does not deserve to be beaten, yet He is beaten anyway. The beating does not take place in the presence of the one who cast the sentence upon him, but instead is carried out by the Romans, a faceless, careless third party. And to top it all off, the beating was done not out of corrective discipline, but out of hatred, contempt, and degradation, so that the words of Isaiah might be fulfilled: He was despised and forsaken of men, one from whom men hide their faces, despised, stricken, smitten, afflicted, scourged. But the miracle of the gospel of Isaiah 53 is this: that disobedience brought healing, prosperity, satisfaction, and justification to the Messiah and to all who would believe in Him. As Joseph told his brothers, what the Jewish rulers meant for evil, God meant for good.

As Christians then, we are to abide by an ethic of mercy. Rather than lashing out with reckless rage, even in our justice, even when punishment is necessary, it is to be tempered with mercy.

Command #2 - Concerning the working animal

Verse 4 gives the nation of Israel a command regarding humane treatment of animals. Not only was the nation to be merciful to those who required punishment for a crime, but they were also to be merciful to the animals. In this particular context, the command is to allow the ox to eat the grain that it threshes. The process of threshing during ancient harvests was fairly simple. You cut the stalks of corn or wheat, then lay them on the threshing floor. Often this was circular. Then in the middle, there would be a kind of axel with a spoke, and coming off the spoke would be a yoke for the ox. Behind the ox would be a threshing sled, basically a heavy piece of wood, metal, stone or a combination of the three, that would grind down the gain and separate the edible parts from the chaff. The ox would walk in circles, sled in tow, as field workers would throw raw stalks of grain onto the threshing floor. The law mandates here that the ox should be allowed to eat some of that threshed grain as it walks. Now this would certainly cut into your profits some, but the result is a happy and hard working animal. This comes out of the created order, where God gave charge over the animals to Adam. This didn’t give Adam license to abuse the animals but he was rather to steward them and care for them as gifts from God. And isn’t that what animals are? Gifts from God? Whether it be for companionship, food, clothing, or just to marvel and wonder at the creative hand of God, animals are to be treated with compassion and mercy, not abuse. Now I’m not some PETA advocate up here, saying everyone should be a vegetarian, with all due respect to my vegetarian friend on the second row. What I am saying is what Solomon says in Proverbs 12, that the righteous man has regard for the life of his animal. The ethics of mercy dictate that we are to treat animals with mercy. Practically then, this means animal abuse shouldn’t ever be part of the life of a Christian. I am not saying that animals shouldn’t be slaughtered for food. Rather, when they are slaughtered, it ought to be done in as humane and painless a way as possible. I am not saying animals should not be kept as pets. Rather, what I am saying is that Christians should have regard for the lives of their animals, and should have regard for the lives of all animals.

The Apostle Paul also indicates that this verse is to be understood in a larger context, according to it’s principle, that principle being that all workers, animal or not, are worthy of their wages. Paul applies it in 1 Corinthians 9 in the context of his own ministry, urging the Corinthian church to allow him to reap material blessings for the spiritual blessing he sowed among them.

So there a couple principles at play here: first, in the world of Christian business ethics, Christian business owners shouldn’t underpay their workers. A worker is worth a fair and honest wage. Squeezing your workers has no place in the daily operations of a business run by Christians.

Secondly, in the world of church ethics, those who labor for the good of your soul deserve to be compensated accordingly. Now don’t hear me asking for a raise or something in this, though I won’t speak for Pastor Scott. But I do want you to see the principle. The responsibility of a faithful church is to meet the material needs of their pastor as he meets their spiritual needs.

Command #3 - Concerning the widow of a brother

This law forms the basis of one of the most beloved books in all the Bible, the story of Ruth. The command here is very simple: in order that the family lineage not be broken, and the inheritance not lost, the brother-in-law of a widow was to take her as his wife so as to maintain the family line and inheritance. Even a cursory study of the Old Testament will yield a clear and strong emphasis on the importance of family lines and inheritances. Look no further than the contempt between Jacob and Esau when the birthright, line of blessing, and inheritance was flipped. Look no further than the wealth of genealogies contained with the Bible. God’s Word endeavors to emphasize lineage and family inheritance.

This kinsman-redemption is also done in order to protect the widow. As we have seen before, ancient near eastern culture afforded little protection to women, and the safest place for a woman was entering the house of a Godly man and taking his name. This is perhaps the most practical way to obey God’s command to look after the widow.

Now the best way to understand this passage is to understand the story of Ruth and Boaz. Boaz is a somewhat enigmatic figure in Scripture, he exists along with Melchizidek as a kind of Tom Bombadil, a character of compelling goodness and righteousness with little context or backstory.

Basically all we know about Boaz is that he is a bit of a silver fox, an older, single, wealthy landowner who apparently has never taken a wife. He is one of the only figures in all of God’s Word given extensive narrative treatment, yet not once ever mentioned as having disobeyed God. Truly only Daniel, Joshua, and Boaz receive such treatment in the Old Testament.

He is a good man, and we know this by his treatment of Ruth described in chapters 3 and 4 of Ruth. Chapter 3 deals with Boaz’ faithfulness in keeping the laws of Deuteronomy 24:17-22, and chapter 4 deals with Boaz’ faithfulness in keeping Deuteronomy 25:5-10. What is truly compelling about Boaz is his steadfast obedience to these laws. The author of Ruth takes pains to peg each of Boaz’ actions and indeed each of his words to specific obedience to these commands. But perhaps the most compelling part of the story of Boaz is that with each of these commands, he actually takes his obedience beyond what is required, going above the stipulation of law. I’ll show you why in a minute.

First, with the law regarding treatment of widows, aliens, and orphans, Boaz is acting in clear obedience of these laws. Ruth fits all three categories, having lost Mahlon her husband and Elimelech her father and being a Moabitess. The author of Ruth takes care to set that up for his readers in detail in chapter 1. He then allows her to follow his workers and pick up the reaping left behind by the workers, in keeping with the later part of the commandment. But where things get interesting is in 3:15. This seems to be inconsequential at first. Why would the author include this detail about the cloak? Boaz could have just given her the grain. Let’s examine it a little bit deeper. What is Boaz doing? He is giving Ruth grain. Now under normal circumstances, this would be considered a loan. Boaz should expect Ruth to pay him back for the value of the grain at a later time. What’s more, Boaz is well within his right to ask for a pledge or some sort of collateral to mitigate his losses should Ruth effectively rob him. But Boaz is not to take Ruth’s cloak or shawl, according to 24:17. The twist comes here in the narrative when Boaz not only does not exact Ruth’s cloak as collateral, but actually uses it as the vessel to carry what should have been the loan, but is now a gift.

Boaz not only obeys, but he obeys beyond the letter of the law even to the spirit of it. Boaz is a good man, and he is a good man with a Deteronomic ethic of mercy.

But Boaz doesn’t stop there. In chapter 4, we see him execute almost word for word the law of the kinsman redeemer in 25:5-10. Boaz knows that there is a closer kinsman who has prevailing right to redeem Ruth and bear her son so that the line and inheritance of Mahlon would survive. So he does not act in disobedience, but instead willingly offers to facilitate the execution of the law and assist with the legal transaction necessary for this nameless relative to take Ruth as his wife. However this closer relative refuses, likely because he was already married and may have already had other children. So Boaz, apparently being the next closest of kin, offers to redeem Ruth instead. Now up to this point the narrative proceeds precisely according to the procedure laid out in 25:5-10. But now it diverges. In Deuteronomy, the widow is to perform this sandal ritual. In Boaz’ story, Ruth isn’t even there, but the removal of the sandal still takes place, it’s just that Boaz does it, rather than Ruth, and rather than a sign of disgrace as in Deuteronomy, it is a seal of redemption. Boaz obeys the law on Ruth’s behalf, and brings blessing out of it.

We see Boaz then as a perfect Old Testament pre-figurement of the way that Christ would fulfill the whole Law, and obey it even beyond the minimum requirements, and he would do so on our behalf. In the same way that Ruth did nothing in this exchange at the city gate, because she wasn’t even there, so also Christ accomplishes our redemption himself, apart from any help we think we might offer him.

And Christ is pictured in a larger way in the kinsman redeemer law in Detueronomy. Paul is clear in Romans 7: we were bound in marriage to our old husband, our flesh, our sin, the world, the devil. But that husband has died, being defeated by Christ in his resurrection, leaving us thus as a widow. But Christ in his mercy, as the true and better Boaz, redeems us, the orphaned, alien widow, for Himself, making us a glorious and beautiful bride, being prepared for that great wedding day at the end of history.

Command #4 - Concerning a fight that gets out of control

Moses paints another scenario, and this is so specific that we have to conclude that this command was given in response to something that actually happened.

The scenario: two men are fighting with one another, the fight gets physical, the one man is getting the snot beat out of him, so his wife comes to the rescue, and for lack of a more dignified way of putting it, hits the other guy where it hurts. This crime is to be punished by what you might call a mutilation punishment, namely that she should have her hand cut off.

This is an odd command, and one that is difficult to interpret. Generally two approaches are offered. The first interprets this through the grid of God’s commitment to purity and chastity and His commission of purity to the nation. John Calvin argues along these lines in his commentary on these verses, where he says that the punishment is so severe because God is demonstrating that if impure physical contact in the heat of a fistfight is punished this severely, how much more severely will God punish impure physical contact in the heat of lustful desire?

I tend to think that while this is in keeping with the larger theological context of Deuteronomy, especially chapter 22, there is also a more direct understanding in the context of the passage itself.

Other commentators have taken a second approach, pegging this command to the big picture emphasis of the previous command: the importance of lineage, heritage, and legacy. The argument is that God has just demonstrated the importance of retaining the lineage by way of this kinsman redeemer law, and so includes this command as a different perspective on the same idea. If someone were to maim a man’s reproductive organs, to the extent that his lineage and legacy would be cut off, as it were, let the punishment fit the crime. You cut off the line and legacy, we cut off the hand.

However, in the end, regardless of how you might interpret the punishment, the big picture is clear: God is a God of purity and peace, and will not tolerate violence or inappropriate physical contact, or in this case, both at the same time.

Command #5 - Concerning fair trade

In this fifth command again we see the ethics of mercy at play, this time in the business dealings of the nation of Israel. They are here commanded to maintain integrity and righteousness in the the exchange of goods.

In ancient times, transactions were not necessarily measured in currency, but by weight and volume. Here we see both. The word translated in the NASB weights, is the same word used for stone elsewhere in the Old Testament. Many transactions were completed by trading a stone’s worth of one item for a stone’s worth of another. The temptation would be to shift the stones around by making them larger or smaller than the normal size, thus effectively cheating or defrauding your customer. We also see the word here translated measure, which is the Hebrew word ephah, which we know elsewhere in Scripture was a specific and defined measurement for volume of dry goods, usually grain or flour.

The nation is called to honesty and integrity by the use of the words full and just, which carry the weight of righteous conduct, as demonstrated elsewhere in Scripture such as in Proverbs 11, Proverbs 16, and Proverbs 20.

This type of felony in ancient Israel was of the highest sort, described here as an abomination. This means that shady business dealings and a failure to trade fairly was tantamount to homosexual relations, worship of graven images, and child sacrifice.

And yet sadly, I know of many Christians in business and industry who don’t take this as seriously as God takes it. Christian crony capitalism abounds in our country and communities and churches.

God’s desire for His people in the corporate world is that they would be committed to fair and just trade, to fair and just business, to operating with honesty and integrity in all things. No fraud, no ripoffs, no scams.

Command #6 - Concerning the Amalekites

This command can be tricky. It seems a little bit misplaced. The nation is to essentially forget about Amalek, and not only forget about them but actively purge records of their existence from the earth.

This seems like a harsh reaction by God and by Moses against Amalek. What’s the backstory? This originates in Exodus 17, with the story of Moses having to have his hands held up so that the battle would go in favor of the Israelites. This blot out phrasing is used there as well, but the Deuteronomy account before us tonight provides two additional details that explain to us why Moses includes this account here at the end of this section.

The first detail is the nature of the Amalekites’ attack against Israel. It was a deceptive and ignoble attack, targeting the weak and vulnerable at the rear. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 take great care to regulate the treatment of the infirm, the sick, women, and children during times of war. While this Amalekite attack took place nearly 3500 years prior to the Conventions, the principles remain in force. Honorable warfare is conducted fairly and with justice, if it must be conducted at all.

Amalek disregarded that, and treated Israel with injustice as the Amalekites attacked the faint and weary from the rear.

The second detail is that Amalek did not fear God. The implication here is that those who fear God conduct warfare with integrity, honesty, and justice.

So why blot them out? Simply because Amalek is to exist, according to Yahweh and Moses, as a prime example of utter failure to abide by a Biblical ethic of mercy. If you blot out Amalek, you blot out the example of what not to do, thereby aiding you in doing what you should do - treating others with the same mercy you have been treated with.

So Moses capstones this section of his sermon with a poignant visual example, a reminder of who God is and who the nation of Israel is supposed to be, in the form of a contrast over against the Amalekites. It is a fitting conclusion to this section on practical Biblical ethics.

Conclusion - Averting the crisis

As we look back on the last few weeks and months, digging into Moses’ pastoral wisdom for the nation of Israel, we come away with a clear code of conduct that not only applied to the nation of Israel, but applies to us today. A well-ordered society is undergirded by first principles, ethical standards, and absolute truth.

We live in a society that has disregarded these things. We have presented before the legislative bodies of our country for approval into our highest court a woman who cannot define her own gender, who purports to rewrite history, who cannot make a clear statement on the ethical position of pedophilia.

We have in our backyard at this very moment a crisis of truth, a crisis of ethics, a crisis of principles. Moses certainly spoke into the life of the nation of Israel in his day, but by the power of the Spirit of God he also speaks into the life of 21st century America as well. And to avert the crisis, we don’t need popular celebrities or TV personalities or social media influencers to miraculously come to Christ and effecting some kind of radical change. Truthfully, if any public or popular figure was saved, they would be deplatformed immediately. Instead, if we want to avert this crisis, we start in the mirror, and by that I mean, as James says, the Word of God. Come and see who God is. Come and see what He requires. And only after you have taken a good, long, hard look at the true and living God, take a look inside. How should I then live? Having beheld God in His glory, how do I walk? And then once you’ve started walking according to a Biblical standard of truth and ethics, we start raising up children to understand truth and ethics. We conduct our marriages with truth and ethics. We walk in truthful and ethical fellowship with one another in the context of a Biblical local church. We hold ourselves and our coworkers and anyone in our sphere of professional influence to standards of truth and to ethical conduct.

And if every serious Christian in the United States started doing that, and teaching others to do the same, you might just see the crisis get averted.