Deuteronomy 25 - Feeding the Oxen

In Deuteronomy 25 is a seemingly inconsequential verse that I at first glanced over without a thought but upon reading the commentary on it realized that it was much more profound than I had ever expected (and I guess the lesson is not to ever think a word in the Word is inconsequential!).  That verse is Deuteronomy 25:4 which reads, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn on the floor."  There is a literal meaning here which has to do with humane treatment of animals, but like much else in the Bible the significance doesn't end there, and actually it doesn't quite even begin there.  What Deuteronomy 25:4 is telling us is that there are those among us who do laborious deeds for our benefit and we are not to neglect them but are to provide for them.  Think of the soldier, who goes out and risks his life that we may have safety back home.  His deed is utterly selfless and I don't know too many who would argue his pay should not come out of our pocketbooks.  To most it would seem pretty logical to give up some of our money so that the soldier may get by; we are after all the main beneficiaries of his work.  So why is it much harder to imagine the same principal for clerics?  The soldier labors for our physical safety and well-being, while the cleric labors for our spiritual safety and well-being.  The cleric, and maybe I should narrow the term, whether priest, bishop, religious brother or sister, selflessly labors his or her life away for our spiritual betterment.  They are the oxen treading out the corn on the floor.  Does it seem logical to muzzle them?  Some (lately many) argue that they are greedy to "demand" our money as stipends.  We are offended when that collection basket comes by.  Why should we give up our hard-earned money to the cleric who spends his days in leisure on the church grounds?  Well, that whole idea is wrong, both our attitude and conception of what a cleric does.  The life of a priest is one of constant labor.  And it is all for our sake.  Just as we wouldn't think twice of paying for a soldier's necessities of life, we should think likewise concerning a priest.  And of course St. Paul clarifies all of this for us:  "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 doth he say this indeed for our sakes?  For these things are written for our sakes: that he that ploweth should plow in hope: and he that thresheth, in hope to receive fruit.  If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?" (First Corinthians 9:9-11).

Deuteronomy 23-24: What's the Deal With Divorce?

Divorce is a divisive issue.  Genesis 2:24 clearly describes the utter seriousness and sacredness of marriage.  No mention of divorce is found in these early chapters of the Bible in which the institution of marriage is introduced once for all.  More than likely, divorce crept in as man's inerrant ways became more prevalent.  For divorce is part and parcel with sin.  If man and woman both lived sinless lives (i.e., lives of unselfishness and virtue), divorce would be an unnecessary thing.  But divorce becomes an issue when one or both of the partners forget the sacredness of marriage and begin to live selfishly.  A man commits adultery, a woman doesn't want the responsibility of motherhood anymore, a man shows no affection or care for his spouse, a woman is distrustful and disrespectful of her spouse, and on and on and on.  Essentially, when humans start acting human, divorce becomes almost necessary.  No doubt the bar God sets is high.  Two becoming one is no slight thing.  But in Deuteronomy we find some verses that seem to undermine God's great proclamation of matrimony in Genesis.  Deuteronomy 24:1 seems to grant permission for divorce, and at that time, yes, it did just that.  It may seem difficult to reconcile God's decree in Genesis and Jesus's decree in the Gospels with this verse in Deuteronomy, but Jesus Himself clears it up for us.  Matthew 19:7-8 says, "They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?  He saith to them: Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."  And there it all is.  It's a simple case of the Old Law versus the New (which in many ways is much older than the Old Law!).  God's original plan was too much for the Israelites to handle, so Moses, in an effort to avert worse sins, permitted divorce among those early Jews, though stressing that it didn't change God's original proclamation that the flesh of two become one, which is why adultery was still committed when remarriage occurred (committed though the consequence presumably lessened).  But when Christ came, He made all things new, and in the case of marriage He actually made things old!  He re-instituted the eternal sacredness of those words in Genesis.  Marriage was once again indissoluble (though, again, scholars say it always was).  Divorce need not be permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts anymore, for the Light of Christ has filled the world, granting strength to the married, to live virtuously, and to have no need of divorce; for saying humans still need it is to say Christ made no difference by His coming.

Deuteronomy 22 - Against Nature

Once again, this chapter of Deuteronomy is filled to the brim with laws and ordinances.  Much of it has already been mentioned in Exodus and Leviticus.  One verse I found interesting, though, was verse 5: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doth these things is abominable before God."  There is a lot to be said of assuming one's natural role throughout the Old Testament.  Charges against homosexual activity have already been laid.  But this verse in Deuteronomy seems to be of a more specific nature, though some disagree.  At face value, it condemns men wearing women's clothes and women wearing men's clothes.  This Law would surly be put to the test in today's culture!  But nearly nothing is left at face value in the Good Book.  There is much more to this ordinance.  Some think Moses is here referring to specific pagan rituals that required men and women to change clothes.  Others think this is a veiled reference to the ban on women serving in warfare, in that they are not allowed to don a soldier's attire.  And others still think it alludes to the greater sins of men and women going against their nature in acts of lust.  A couple of verses later in the Bible seem to echo this passage in Deuteronomy:

"And all these things are mingled together...
Forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature, disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleanness." (Wisdom 14:25-26)

"For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections.  For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
And in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy..." (Romans 1:26-27)

Deuteronomy 22:5 may very well be a law against that which may lead to greater sins, to which the above passages refer.  There is a common thread throughout Old and New Testament that the natural order of things is a Good to which we ought to conform ourselves.  When we begin to break down that order, the fabric of lawful society begins to disintegrate.  And all manner of behavior begins to occur, to the apathy of the rest of society.  Amazingly, we have turned our backs on the Word, and we are thus living in such a time now.

Deuteronomy 21 - Observations on the Law

Deuteronomy 21 delves deep into the Law, and at times it can be difficult to comprehend.  It reveals a lot about the Old Law, and how it could paradoxically be both stringent as rock and also strangely malleable.  In the former case, I refer to the Laws on child disobedience.  There were apparently very harsh punishments in store for any son who recklessly disobeys his parents, namely stoning.  This seems instantly overly cruel, especially to 21st century ears.  But we must always look at the bigger picture and not let our modern sensibilities cloud our vision.  What the Bible describes here as "disobedience" is really much worse than what the word today implies.  We're talking here about a son who wants to murder his parents!  A son who is old enough to know better yet rejects his parents, hates his parents, and would rather see them die so that he could continue to live a life of debauchery and drunkenness!  All mild cases of child disobedience were handled with much more moderate punishments.  Girls were exempt from this rule altogether.  And to put it more in perspective, it's interesting to note how other ancient societies handled this issue (which, if you think of it, if allowed to go on, could threaten the very foundation of civil order).  The Romans, according to Justinian and as quoted in my commentary, "formerly sewed such wretches in a leathern sack, but afterwards they enclosed with them a dog, a cock, a viper, and a monkey; and having first whipped them so as to fetch blood, placed them in a chariot drawn by black oxen, and hurled them into the sea or into some river."  The severity of the crime must be remembered.

The other issue is of complications arising from polygamy.  It's interesting to note how the Old Testament treats of polygamy.  Deuteronomy 21:15-16 states, "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and the other hated, and they have had children by him, and the son of the hated be the first-born;  And he meaneth to divide his substance among his sons: he may not make the son of the beloved the first-born, and prefer him before the son of the hated."  Moses here does not endorse polygamy or praise it, he simply speaks of it.  It was not the ideal way and nowhere in the Old Testament does it speak of polygamy as the ideal way.  It was a remnant of a polytheistic, pagan culture that must have been harder to eradicate than a field of weeds!  In the Old Testament, polygamy, at times, is simply tolerated in an effort to avoid greater sins.  And this toleration has since been revoked by Christ "as contrary to the primary design of God, and the institution of matrimony" (Challoner).

The Old Law is truly a fascinating study.  I'm simply picking at the upper most part of the surface.  I leave a more thorough analysis to those more capable.