Thinking on Scripture with Dr. Steven R. Cook

Deuteronomy 25:1-10 - Corporal Punishment, Animal Rights, and Levirate Marriage

     In this section, Moses addresses how corporal punishment was to be meted out by the courts (Deut 25:1-3), how fairness applied to work animals (Deut 25:4), and the specifics of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10).
Fair Punishment for Crime
     In ancient Israel, like any nation, there were certain crimes that warranted punishment. In this particular case, Moses set a limit on the number of blows a man could receive as punishment for his crime. Moses said, “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt” (Deut 25:1-2).
     In Moses’ example, a dispute arose between two men who could not resolve their case by themselves and needed to bring it before a court. In this instance, the judges heard and ruled on the case and declared one righteous (צַדִּיק tsaddiq – righteous, just) and the other wicked (רָשָׁע rasha – wicked, criminal). This assumes God’s law had been given, that the judges objectively understood the law based on God’s intent, that they properly evaluated the case, and rendered a verdict that declared one to be justified and the other a criminal (Deut 25:1). All of this assumes God as the absolute moral Lawgiver who had revealed His will in objective language that could be understood and applied. If there is no absolute moral Lawgiver, then there are no absolute moral laws, and if there are no absolute moral laws, then right and wrong are reduced to arbitrary absolutes manufactured by those in power.
     Here, Moses mentions a case, which is vague and probably intended to leave its application open to multiple instances where the judgment might apply. If the wicked person had committed a crime worthy of a beating, it was to be executed right away in the presence of the judge, and the beating was to be in proportion to the crime. Furthermore, Moses set a limit on the number of lashes a criminal could receive, saying, “He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes” (Deut 25:3). The purpose of the limitation was to prevent the criminal from being degraded by excessive punishment. After all, he was still a person with intrinsic value.
     The ancient Law Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1750 B.C.) directed a man to be beaten 60 times, saying, “If a seignior has struck the cheek of a seignior who is superior to him, he shall be beaten sixty (times) with an oxtail whip in the assembly.”[1] This shows that public beatings were a common practice in the ancient world. Peter Craigie states:
"The substance of this legislation makes it very clear that corporal punishment was subject to many safeguards designed to avoid its abuse. Corporal punishment could be inflicted only after proper trial, and then it was to be carried out, within the specified limit, under the supervision of the judge. In this way, care was taken to see that the punishment was appropriate to the crime, on the one hand, and that the criminal was not grossly maltreated on the other hand; the guilty party was still your brother (v. 3b; a fellow Israelite) and was not to be publicly humiliated."[2]
     In the New Testament we learn this particular law was reduced to thirty-nine blows, likely as a safeguard to prevent Jewish judges from going beyond what the law demanded. The apostle Paul had been wrongly beaten with a whip, saying, “Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes” (2 Cor 11:24), adding, “Three times I was beaten with rods” (2 Cor 11:25). Here was an abuse of this law by corrupt Israelites who sought to suppress Paul and his Christian ministry.
Fair Treatment of Work Animals
     Moses then addressed the just treatment of an ox while it is threshing wheat, saying, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deut 25:4). Moses’ point in adding this statement seems to expound on the previous verses. If God required just treatment of animals, how much more the just treatment of people. But it also demonstrated an economic principle that the animal that worked had the right to benefit from its labor. Daniel Block states:
"Oxen used for threshing grain must not be muzzled. The ordinance assumes the ancient practice of threshing grain by having oxen trample the stalks or pull rock-studded sledges over the stalks spread out on the threshing floor. Greedy farmers muzzled their oxen or donkeys to prevent them from eating instead of working, or simply eating that which he hoped to harvest for himself (cf. Prov 14:4)."[3]
Eugene Merrill adds:
"The animal is nowhere “brother to the man” in Scripture but always sharply distinguished from humans. Nevertheless, the animal world, like all nature, is part of the divine creation entrusted to humankind as a stewardship. To abuse animal life is to fail to discharge that stewardship, and to fail to show mercy to God’s lowest creatures is to open the door to disregard of human life as well."[4]
     Moses had previously addressed humanitarian treatment of animals that were used for work (Deut 5:14; 22:1-4, 6-7). Elsewhere, the Bible reveals a theology of animals that reveals God personally cares for the animals He’s created (Psa 104:10-29; 147:9; Matt 6:26), and He expects His people to do the same. Solomon states, “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, but even the compassion of the wicked is cruel” (Prov 12:10).
     The apostle Paul used this verse in Deuteronomy as an analogy for compensating pastors for their work, saying, “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’, and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’” (1 Tim 5:17-18; cf., 1 Cor 9:9-10). In this way, believers help support their pastors for the work they do. Such support is honored by God.
The Law of Levirate Marriage
     Moses then issued the law of levirate marriage, saying, “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her” (Deut 25:5).
     Marrying a sister-in-law was forbidden under the Mosaic Law (Lev 18:16). However, Moses here gave an exception in which he directed the brother of the deceased to take his sister-in-law as his wife in order to bring forth a son (child) in his brother’s place. Apparently, this practice existed in ancient Israel (Gen 38:6-10), and Moses here codified it as law. The passage assumes 1) the living brother is not married (or at least willing to take a second wife), 2) that the brothers had lived on the same property together (perhaps sharing adjacent land), and 3) his sister-in-law had no children. Some see the heir as being a son only; however, Moses had previously ruled that a daughter could inherit the land (see Num 27:1-11). If the living brother took his sister-in-law to be his wife, then he 1) had a wife for life, 2) he would raise her firstborn under his brother’s name, and 3) the firstborn would inherit his brother’s property. This was a sacrifice that cost the brother financially, as he would need to raise his biological child until he was an adult, at which time the child would inherit the land. If the surviving brother refused to marry his sister-in-law, and she died childless, then his brother’s property would likely become his own. Earl Radmacher states:
"The ancients greatly feared having no heirs to carry on the family’s name. Furthermore, a widow with no children to take care of her would quickly become a beggar. Taking a brother’s widow as a second wife protected her and preserved the name, memory, and interests of the deceased brother. The dead brother would be acknowledged as the legal father of the firstborn son of that marriage. This practice is called levirate marriage, from the Latin word for brother-in-law."[5]
Thomas Constable adds:
"The Israelites were to practice levirate marriage only in cases where the brothers had lived together (v. 5) and the remaining brother was not already married. Living together meant sharing the same estate, not necessarily residing under the same roof. When another kinsman voluntarily assumed the responsibility of the surviving brother, that brother was apparently under no obligation to marry his sister-in-law (cf. Ruth 4)."[6]
     Moses gave the reason for the levirate marriage, saying, “It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel” (Deut 25:6). The firstborn child would be the biological offspring of the living brother, but would eventually become the legal heir of his deceased brother, thus perpetuating the dead brother’s name in Israel.
     However, though this was the honorable thing to do, it was not commanded of the living brother. Moses described a scenario in which the living brother refused to perform his levirate duty, saying, “But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.” (Deut 25:7). Though Moses does not give a reason why the brother refused to marry his sister-in-law, it could be the brother was motivated by greed to get his deceased brother’s property. If so, this would be a violation of the command, “You shall not covet” (Deut 5:21a). Daniel Block states:
"The reason why a brother might refuse to marry the widow probably is to be found in a desire for personal gain. If he married the woman and there was a male child, that child, who would legally be the son of the deceased man, would inherit his “father’s” property. In the absence of such a child, however, the surviving brother might hope to inherit the property of his deceased brother (Num. 27:9; this would apply only if the widow had no children at all, male or female). If such were the motive, it deserved the reprobation of the community."[7]
     However, the widow was not without recourse to persuade her brother-in-law to marry her and to give her a child, as she can take the matter to the elders of the gate of the city and plead her case. Daniel Block writes:
"Moses authorizes the bereaved widow to present her complaint before the elders at the town gate (v. 7b). As a legally competent plaintiff, he invites her to present her case before the body responsible for applying Israel’s family laws. Having lost her husband, who would otherwise defend her interests, she may appeal to the elders to stand up for her. In addition to authorizing women to take their cases to the elders, he also advises the women on how to present their case."[8]
     After the widow made her case, Moses directed the elders, saying, “Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house’” (Deut 25:8-9). Here was social pressure applied to the man to coerce him to perform his levirate duty, which was the selfless act of marrying his deceased brother’s widow and raising up a child to carry on his name. However, if the elders of the city could not persuade the man, then the widow was permitted to publicly humiliate him by taking his sandal, spitting in his face, and publicly declaring how the man had failed to behave honorably. Keil and Delitzsch state:
"The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Ruth 4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions. The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property, he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man’s position and property. … But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face."[9]
     Though we cannot be certain, it’s likely the taking of the sandal served as a receipt of the transaction in which the widow took possession of her deceased husband’s property, albeit without a husband or son to take ultimate inheritance of the land after she died. Daniel Block states:
"The action represented a symbolic action of shame, but it also symbolized the transfer of the brother-in-law’s rights to the deceased’s widow and to that portion of the patrimonial estate that her husband would have received when it was divided. Since the woman would take the sandal home, it would function like a receipt, providing concrete proof of the present legal proceedings (cf. Ruth 4:7–8)."[10]
     If this is the case, it could be that when the widow died, the land would return to the brother who refused to execute his levirate duties. However, until then, and throughout his life, the man would bear the public shame of his selfish act. So, Moses stated, “In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed’” (Deut 25:10). Here was a legacy of shame that carried on for many years, all because a man would not live honorably and selflessly as God directed. One action can have lasting consequences that can carry on for years. No doubt, his other relatives and children would be marked by the man’s selfish actions. We must realize that every moment is an opportunity for integrity.
The Example of Ruth
     Ruth was married to an Israelite man who died and left her a widow (Ruth 1:1-5). Ruth became a believer in Yahweh and committed herself to caring for Naomi, her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16-17). After going to Bethlehem with Naomi, Ruth happened to glean from the field of Boaz (providentially), who was a kinsman to her deceased husband (Ruth 2:20), and he was amenable to caring for her (Ruth 2:1-8). Under Naomi’s guidance, Ruth came to Boaz as her kinsman redeemer and sought levirate marriage (Ruth 3:1-11). However, being an honorable man who desired to live according to God’s law, Boaz informed Ruth there was another man who was a kinsman closer to her (Ruth 3:12), and Boaz was willing to approach the man concerning his duty (Ruth 3:13). When Boaz approached the man at the city gate, he explained the situation concerning their dead relative, Elimelech, and the need to purchase the land for Naomi, who needed the resources (Ruth 4:1-4). However, Boaz also informed his relative that he would need to take Ruth as his wife and to fulfill his levirate duty (Ruth 4:5). Upon hearing this from Boaz, the nearest kinsman declined the offer, fearing it would impact him in such a way so as to jeopardize his own inheritance (Ruth 4:6). Having executed a legal transaction (Ruth 4:7-8), Boaz agreed to purchase the land from Naomi and to take Ruth to be his wife in order to raise up a descendant to inherit the deceased relative’s land (Ruth 4:9-10). Boaz’ actions were acknowledged and praised by the elders and citizens who witnessed the transaction (Ruth 4:11-12). Boaz and Ruth married and bore children who eventually led to the birth of King David (Ruth 4:13-22), and Jesus the Messiah (Matt 1:5-6, 17).
     The marriage of Boaz to Ruth adhered to the law of the levirate marriage, in which Boaz would father a biological son that would eventually not be his son, but the son of his deceased relative, Elimelech. Gary North states:
"Boaz became the biggest covenantal somebody in his generation only because he was willing to become a covenantal nobody in the extension of Elimelech’s line. The land that he presumably bought from Naomi became the family inheritance in another man’s line. Any improvements that he made in this land became another family line’s property. By abandoning his own name covenantally, he thereby became the greatest name of his generation, a name that is listed in both of the messianic genealogies in the New Testament (Matt 1:5; Luke 3:32)."[11]
 
 
[1] James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with Supplement. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 175.
[2] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 312.
[3] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 580.
[4] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 326.
[5] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 259.
[6] Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), Dt 25:5.
[7] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 315.
[8] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 583.
[9] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 954–955.
[10] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 583–584.
[11] Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy; Chapter 62, Levirate Marriage and Family Name, https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnde/Chapter62.htm.

A Role Model for Believers

     There’s a wonderful passage in the book of Ezra that tells us something about this righteous man that God used to bless others. We learn, “Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). The Hebrew verb כּוּן kun, translated set, means “to prepare, make ready…to erect, set up…determine, to fix something.”[1] Other translations render the verb as determined (CSB), dedicated (NET), and devoted (NIV). This determination speaks of an inward decision by Ezra to do three things: 1) to study the law of the LORD, 2) to practice it, and 3) to teach it to others. Laney states, “The order is significant. A person cannot practice what he has not thoroughly studied; and he should not teach principles he has not carefully applied.”[2]
     As a priest, Ezra was modeling God’s intention for him, “For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Mal 2:7). There is direct relevance for us as Christians, for Jesus “has made us to be a kingdom, to serve as priests to His God and Father” (Rev 1:6). Righteousness is a choice to learn God’s Word, to live God’s Word, and to instruct others to do the same.
     Learn God’s Word. First, “Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD.” To study the law of the LORD is simply to study His written Word. This kind of devotion and study lasts a lifetime, for one cannot adequately grasp God’s Word in a few lessons. A devoted life of studying God’s Word was held by others in the Old Testament. David writes of the godly person, whose “delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law, he meditates day and night” (Psa 1:2). And the benefit of such activity is that the dedicated person “will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does, he prospers” (Psa 1:3). Another psalmist wrote, “O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psa 119:97). Paul told Timothy, “Study to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15 KJV). A little further on in his letter, Paul said, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).
     Live God’s Word. Second, Ezra sought “to practice” what he’d learned from God’s Word. There’s an axiom that we cannot live what we do not know, and learning God’s Word necessarily precedes living His will. Of course, it is possible to study God’s Word and never apply it. This is why James wrote, saying, “But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves” (Jam 1:22). Biblical wisdom is the application of God’s Word to everyday life. Jesus communicated this, saying, “everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt 7:24). Learning and doing. That’s the order. Warren Wiersbe writes, “If our knowledge of the truth doesn’t result in obedience, then we end up with a big head instead of a burning heart (1 Cor 8:1; Luke 24:32); and truth becomes a toy to play with, not a tool to build with. Instead of building our Christian character, we only deceive ourselves and try to deceive others (1 John 1:5–10).”[3]
     Share God’s Word. Ezra went a third step, as he sought “to teach” other believers how to live the truth of God’s Word. If the next generation of believers are to be effective, they need to know God’s Word and how to live it. This was true in Ezra’s day, and it’s certainly true in ours. But such biblical communication should not be limited to the church pulpit or seminary classroom. Sharing God’s Word should be something practiced by all growing Christians. What’s interesting is that the apostle Paul built on what Timothy’s mother and grandmother had taught him in the home. Paul said to Timothy, “I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well...and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15).
     In closing, may we all model this simple formula for godliness and success, diligently studying the Scriptures, applying what we learn as we grow, and sharing that knowledge with others. This is what Paul hoped Timothy would do, as he encouraged him to “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Not only was Timothy to retain and guard the treasure of God’s Word in his heart, but he was to pass it on to others, as Paul stated, “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2).
 
[1] Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 465.
[2] Robert B. Hughes and J. Carl Laney, Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary, The Tyndale Reference Library (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 169.
[3] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Heroic, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1997), 38–39.

Deuteronomy 24:14-22 - Compassionate employers, caring for the poor, widows, orphans and aliens

     In this section (Deut 24:14-22), Moses directs the wealthy employer to pay his laborer at the appropriate time (Deut 24:14-15), commands that a son not pay for his father’s crime (Deut 24:16), that the powerful not pervert justice due the poor (Deut 24:17-18), but to be gracious and help them (Deut 24:19-22).
Don’t withhold payment for laborers
     Those with financial wealth in Israel were to be rich in love and consideration of the less fortunate, especially their employees. For this reason, Moses said, “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns” (Deut 24:14). A command always assumes intellectual capacity to understand the directive, volitional capacity to obey the directive, and present or future opportunity. In this instance, the directive is centered on the wealthy Israelite who employs poor laborers to work for him. A countrymen would be a fellow Israelite, and an alien (גֵּר ger) would be a foreigner who joined the covenant community by faith in Yahweh and commitment to Israel’s laws (i.e., Ruth 1:16-17).
     Moses continued, saying, “You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you” (Deut 24:15). In this context, to oppress the poor or needy person meant to withhold his wages beyond the day. It was wrong because the poor laborer lived hand to mouth. To withhold his pay meant he would go hungry. If this happened, the poor person could take his complaint directly to God, and the employer would be guilty of sin. The wealthy Israelite, in this situation, stands before God as one who should have honored his word and paid his employee. Failure to pay at the appropriate time was a violation of the commandment, “You shall not steal” (Deut 5:19). James addressed this same issue in his epistle (Jam 5:4).
Individual responsibility
     Moses also addressed the subject of individual responsibility, saying, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut 24:16). A crime that warranted the death penalty was to be paid by the perpetrator and not a son. The law code of Hammurabi (circa 1750 B.C.) allowed for a son to be put death for his father’s crime. The law of Hammurabi stated, “If a builder constructed a house for a seignior, but did not make his work strong, with the result that the house which he built collapsed and so has caused the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death. If it has caused the death of a son of the owner of the house, they shall put the son of that builder to death.”[1] Though permitted under other ancient near eastern law codes, this practice was strictly forbidden by God. Each person was to be personally responsible for his/her own sin.
     However, when a person commits a crime, it impacts the offender as well as those in connection with him/her, and this is especially true in the family. Though children were not to pay for their parent’s crime, they would still experience the fallout of the parent’s behavior, as the death of the parent would have an immediate and future impact on the children mentally, emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Actions have consequences which often impact others (see Jonah 1:12).
Don’t abuse the poor
     Concerning the rights of the poor, Moses stated, “You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge” (Deut 24:17). God cares about the rights of the poor in society and had issued specific laws for their protection and care. To obey God’s law and uphold justice for the alien, orphan, or widow was regarded as righteousness. To disobey God’s directive would cause harm to the vulnerable and was regarded as a crime.
     Previously God had permitted creditors to accept a garment as a pledge (Deut 24:12-13), which apparently had limitations, as He completely prohibited accepting a widow’s cloak as a pledge. Being poor, she was apparently exempted from giving anything as a pledge for a loan. Eugene Merrill states, “This would, in effect, have become more a gift than a loan because her opportunities for repayment would have been extremely limited depending on her age and physical capacity and the like.”[2]
     God legislated certain rights for vulnerable persons in society; specifically, the poor, widows, orphans, and sojourners. These rights were theirs by divine law in which God commanded those blessed with resources to provide for the needs, protection, and just treatment of the vulnerable. Blessed Israelites were theologically obligated by God to help the less fortunate. In God’s theocratic kingdom, the dependent could expect the powerful and wealthy (who were obedient-to-the-word-believers), to help meet their needs and defend their rights. Solomon wrote, “The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, the wicked does not understand such concern” (Prov 29:7).[3] The “righteous” are those who have regard for God and His laws and are “concerned for rights of the poor” (cf. Isa 10:1-2). Those who disregarded God’s laws concerning the vulnerable could expect to be judged by Him, as Moses wrote, “Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow” (Deut 27:19).
     The wealthy Israelite was to act toward the poor and needy the same way God had acted toward His people when they were in slavery in Egypt. For this reason, Moses said, “But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore, I am commanding you to do this thing” (Deut 24:18). Israelites were directed by God to remember their heritage and that they were descendants of slaves in Egypt, that they were once oppressed, and that God had delivered them from oppression (Deut 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:22). Such remembrances would help guide them in their behavior towards others who were less fortunate and needed defenders who would fight for them.
Remember to care for the poor
     Continuing the discussion about caring for the poor, Moses said, “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands” (Deut 24:19). The harvesting by the farmer was to be done in such a way that he was not to pick his field clean, and if something was left in the field by accident, he was to leave it there for the poor. The generous farmer might even arrange to leave something behind, as Boaz had done for Ruth (Ruth 2:15-16). Concerning orchards and vineyards, Moses said, “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow” (Deut 24:20-21). Concerning these verses, Warren Wiersbe states:
"The farmer was to leave some “gleanings” for the poor during the time of harvest (Deut. 24:19–22; see Lev. 19:9–10). This would give the aliens, orphans, and widows opportunity to gather food in a dignified way and not be forced to beg. As with the lender, so with the generous farmer: God would bless him in his work and reward him for his kindness to the poor (Psa 41:1; Prov 14:21, 31; 29:7)."[4]
     In the Old Testament, the poor were to receive special consideration. During harvest time, the Lord instructed farmers to leave a portion of their fields uncut and their vineyards with fruit left on the trees and vines so that the needy person in their community could come and work the fields for themselves and have something to eat (Lev 19:9-10). God had blessed the farmer, and He expected him to be a conduit of blessing to others. The unharvested portion of the field was for the less fortunate in society, but they had to come and work for what was left, and this provided them food to eat.
     For a second time in this section, Moses states, “You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore, I am commanding you to do this thing” (Deut 24:22; cf., Deut 5:15; 15:15; 16:3; 24:22). Again, Israelites were directed by God to remember their heritage and that they were once an oppressed people. The word remember translates the Hebrew verb זָכַר zakar, which means to call to mind, and implies intentionality. God’s people were commanded to remember their past servitude in Egypt, and that memory was to have a direct influence on how they treated others who were less fortunate than themselves. Remembering God, His commands and blessings, is set against the danger of forgetting, which will lead to ruin (Deut 6:12; 8:11, 14). If a wealthy Israelite mistreated the poor, like Egypt had mistreated Israel, then God would treat the abuser as He had treated Pharaoh, bringing divine judgment. Blessing or cursing was an option for each Israelite (Deut 11:26-28).
Present Application
     The Bible promotes a strong work ethic for all who are able. Solomon wrote, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might” (Eccl 9:10a). And the work we perform is not merely for self or others, but unto the Lord. Paul wrote, “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve” (Col 3:23-24). With this realization, we should work wisely and with good energy, producing a good product or service, knowing we are working and serving the Lord Himself.
     In contrast to good workers, the apostle Paul states, “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat” (2 Th 3:10). No work means no food. Of course, this assumes one has the physical and cognitive ability as well as the opportunity. Naturally, a special dispensation is granted to those who cannot help themselves because of a disability, as was the case with Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:1-13).
     God expects laborers to be compensated for the work they do. In fact, God’s expectation of compensation for work performed was so strong, it even extended to animals, as Moses wrote, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deut 25:4). The animal that worked had the right to benefit from its labor. The apostle Paul used this verse in Deuteronomy as an analogy for compensating pastors for their work, saying, “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’, and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’” (1 Tim 5:17-18). In this way, believers help support their pastors for the work they do. Such support is honored by God.
     However, we must also guard against overworking ourselves. In the Mosaic Law, God mandated physical rest on a regular basis. Moses wrote, “Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves” (Ex 23:12; cf. Ex 34:21). Here, the rest was for everyone and even included animals. In another place, Solomon said, “One hand full of rest is better than two fists full of labor and striving after wind” (Eccl 4:6). This means there is balance to one’s life regarding work and rest. During a time of ministry, Jesus told His disciples, “Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while. For there were many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat” (Mark 6:31). Mark informs us that Jesus pulled His disciples away for a while to rest and eat, which is a necessity for those who engage in regular ministry.
     Personally, I love to work and be productive. If anything, I tend to overwork, and that to my own harm. Over the decades I’ve overworked myself into fatigue, burnout, and even depression a few times. And I’ve contracted Shingles on three occasions because of unmanaged stress. That’s no fun. Managing my workload and stress levels has been a challenge for me, and I’ve had to make it a discipline to force myself to stop working, take some rest, and find something enjoyable to do. This benefits me physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually. Lewis Chafer wrote, “It is a serious thing to remove the element of relaxation and play from any life. We cannot be normal physically, mentally or spiritually if we neglect the vital factor in human life. God has provided that our joy shall be full.”[5] Of course, other matters for good health include proper sleep, good nutrition, hydration, exercise, socialization, etc. As Christians, we should work with integrity, be open-handed toward the poor, make time for rest, and help support God’s ministers. All things should be done in moderation.
 
[1] James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with Supplement. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 176.
[2] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 323.
[3] Solomon’s mother planted these seeds of righteousness in the garden of her young son’s mind, hoping someday the landscape of his thinking would beautifully display the richness of God’s Word. She instructed her young son, saying “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Pro 31:8-9). Oh, that mothers would instruct their children in the ways of the Lord; that their children would grow up with godly values that instruct them to care for others and to help the less fortunate. That their children would grow up to represent the highest and best within society and not the lowest and worst.
[4] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 160.
[5] Lewis S. Chafer, He that is Spiritual (Grand Rapids, Mich. Zondervan Publishing, 1967), 60-61.

1 John 1:1-10 - Including General Introduction

     John opens his letter with a statement about personal knowledge pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ, saying, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life” (1 John 1:1). The phrase, from the beginning likely refers to Jesus’ ministry (1 John 2:7, 24; 3:11). The reason for this understanding is that John connects the phrase with his personal experience as one who had heard, seen, and touched the Lord Jesus. This emphasizes that Jesus existed bodily and not merely as a spirit (cf. Luke 24:39). This makes the content of the letter a deposition born out of John’s eyewitness account (cf. John 21:24). The phrase, the Word of Life (τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς), refers to Jesus, whom John had described with similar language in his Gospel (John 1:1, 4, 14; 11:25; 14:6).
     Concerning Jesus, John said, “and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us” (1 John 1:2). Manifested (φανερόω phaneroo) means to make visible or clear.[1] Jesus repeatedly revealed Himself as the Messiah. What John had seen concerning Jesus, he then testified and proclaimed to his readers via the written word. This assumes the integrity of the text and the use of language as a reliable vehicle for the transmission divine truth. Furthermore, what John is proclaiming pertains to eternal life (τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον), which believers can never lose (John 10:28).
     What John had seen and heard concerning Jesus was true, and that truth was proclaimed to his audience and was the basis for their fellowship with God and each other. John said, “what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Fellowship (κοινωνία koinonia) for the Christian has both a vertical and horizontal aspect to it. It is tri-relational and involves fellowship with God and other Christians. Fellowship with God is the dominant theme of John’s letter. Though eternal life can never be lost, our fellowship with God can be forfeited if we operate by false teaching or sinful living. For this reason, Christians must be careful to know and live by God’s Word (Psa 119:160; Prov 4:20-23; John 17:17; 2 Tim 2:15; 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18). False doctrine will not undo our salvation, but can wreck our fellowship with God and other Christians. For this reason, we must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
     John concludes his prologue by saying, “These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete” (1 John 1:4). What John wrote in his letter is the basis for Christian joy. God wants us, His children, to have joy. Jesus said, “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full” (John 15:11).
     It’s interesting that most who saw and heard Jesus rejected Him (John 3:19; 12:37). Jesus said this would happen (Matt 7:13-14). And now many who have never seen or heard Jesus personally accept Him and His message (John 20:29; 1 Pet 1:8). Those with positive volition will accept Christ, and this as a revelation from God the Father (Matt 16:15-17; Luke 24:44-45; Acts 16:14).
     What John reveals is important for Christian fellowship with God, saying, “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Here, John reveals God is light (ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν). Elsewhere, he reveals that God is love (1 John 4:16) and truth (1 John 5:20). For John to say that God is Light means He is morally pure, free sin, and in whom there is no darkness at all. Light reveals what is in the darkness (John 1:4-5) and those who love the darkness will turn away from the Light (John 3:19-20), but those who love God are open and honest with what He reveals (John 3:21). Jesus is the perfect expression of God’s Light, and those who follow Jesus will walk in that light (John 8:12; 12:35-36). For John, light and darkness are ethical terms that refer to one’s heart and behavior (1 John 2:8-11). Paul used the terms as well (Eph 5:8-10).
     John continues, saying, “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:6-7). A Christian can be in a right relationship with God through faith in Christ (John 3:16; 20:21; Acts 4:12; Eph 2:8-9), and not be in fellowship with Him because of a choice to pursue sinful behavior. Being in fellowship (κοινωνία koinonia) with God refers to phase two of the Christian life, in which we are growing spiritually in our walk with the Lord. Earl Radmacher states, “Walk refers to a way of life or daily practice. To walk in darkness means to live contrary to the moral character of God, to live a sinful life. To claim fellowship with God without living a moral life or practicing the truth is to live a lie, since God cannot compromise His holiness to accommodate sin.”[2]
     At any moment, the Christian is either filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:16), or is grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching the Spirit (1 Th 5:19) and operating by the sin nature (Rom 7:14-25; Gal 5:17). The believer who walks in sin is out of touch with God who resides in perpetual holiness. To walk in the light (ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν) means we abide in the sphere of moral purity where God Himself resides, and there we have fellowship with Him. Zane Hodges states:
"How do we do this? If I enter a lighted room and walk around in it, I am walking in the light; I am moving in a sphere which the light illuminates as it shines not only on me but upon everything around me. If I were to personalize the light, I could also say that I was walking in the presence of the light. Since according to this passage God not only is light (verse 5), but He is also in the light, to walk in the light must mean essentially to live in God’s presence, exposed to what He has revealed about Himself. This, of course, is done through openness in prayer and through openness to the Word of God in which He is revealed."[3]
     To walk in the light of God and His revelation does not mean we attain sinless perfection. Certainly, John does not want his readers to sin, but understands there will be times when they do sin (1 John 2:1). To walk in the darkness means we refuse to acknowledge what God says about us and our sin. We are not being open and honest with Him; therefore, we are not willing to confess our sin to Him nor to walk in conformity with His Word. The question might be asked, how can a holy God have fellowship with us since we remain sinful? The answer is, “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7b). The word cleanse translates the Greek verb καθαρίζω katharizo, which here is in the present tense, implying ongoing action. Zane Hodges states, “This simply means that as we maintain an open and honest relationship with God, the many sinful failures and habits that still cling to us do not prevent this fellowship, because God treats us as those who are clean by virtue of the Savior’s shed blood.”[4]
     Being honest about sin with his readers, John says, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Sin in this passage translates the noun ἁμαρτία hamartia, which refers to the sin nature we continue to possess after salvation. Biblically, we know every person born into this world—with the exception of Jesus—is a sinner. We are sinners in Adam (Psa 51:5; Rom 5:12, 19; 1 Cor 15:21-22), sinners by nature (Rom 7:14-25; Gal 5:17), and sinners by choice (Jam 1:14-15). Sin is anything that is contrary to the holy character of God. Though we have our new nature in Christ at the moment of salvation, we continue to possess our sinful nature, and this produces internal conflict throughout our Christian life (Rom 6:6; 7:14-25; 13:14; Col 3:9; Gal 5:16-17). This reality explains why Paul tells the Christians at Rome to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts” (Rom 13:14; cf. Rom 6:6; Col 3:9), and to the Christians at Galatia to “walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal 5:16). Though we struggle with sin, we are assured that “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1), for we are “the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Rom 5:17; Phil 3:9). Both are true. We are perfectly righteous in God’s sight because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and we continue to possess a sin nature and commit sin. Martin Luther understood this and coined the Latin phrase, simul iustus et peccator, which means we are simultaneously righteous and a sinner. Timothy George states:
"Luther described [Christians] as “at once righteous and a sinner” (simul iustus et peccator). Formerly he had understood this term in the Augustinian sense of “partly” a sinner and “partly” righteous. … Now, however, while retaining the paradox of simultaneity, he sharpened each of the clashing concepts into a sovereign, total realm. Luther continued to use simul iustus et peccator after 1518-19, but he did so in the sense of semper (always) iustus et peccator. The believer is not only both righteous and sinful at the same time but is also always or completely both righteous and sinful at the same time [emphasis added]. What does this mean? With respect to our fallen human condition, we are, and always will be in this life, sinners. However, for believers, life in this world is no longer a period of doubtful candidacy for God’s acceptance. In a sense we have already been before God’s judgment seat and have been acquitted on account of Christ. Hence, we are also always righteous."[5]
     As Christians, we are righteous in God’s eyes because of the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us as a free gift (Rom 5:17; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). And, we continue to possess a sin nature that continually causes internal temptation and conflict (Rom 6:6; 7:14-25; 13:14; Col 3:9; Gal 5:16-17, 19). Though the power of the sin nature is broken (Rom 6:11-14), the presence of the sin nature is never removed from us until God takes us from this world and gives us a new body like the body of Jesus (Phil 3:20-21).
     But even though we possess a sinful nature and sometimes yield to it, there is always forgiveness. John states, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). The word if in this passage is a third-class condition, meaning it’s up to us to confess our sins to God. Furthermore, confession (ὁμολογέω homologeo) is a legal term that means we say the same thing about our sin that God says about it. To walk in the light means we are continually confessing our sins to God when we commit them, and that we keep short accounts. God’s forgiveness here is not that which justifies the lost sinner at the moment of faith in Christ (Rom 3:28; 4:4-5), but the familial forgiveness that restores fellowship.
     When John states that God is faithful (πιστός pistos), it means He always keeps His promise to do what He said. God has integrity and cannot lie (Num 23:19; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18). And God is completely righteous (δίκαιος dikaios) when He forgives our sins. Sin always incurs a debt, and forgiveness cancels the debt. But such righteous behavior in God to forgive is never based on our worthiness. Rather, it’s based on the worth and finished work of Christ who shed His blood to atone for our sins (1 John 2:1-2). Furthermore, God not only forgives the sins we name to Him, but is also faithful “to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9b). Later on, John will state that “All unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17a). The point here is that when we confess the sins we know about, God is faithful and righteous to forgive us of those sins, as well as all the sins we may have not known about or forgotten. God is perfect, and His forgiveness is always perfect. William MacDonald states:
"The forgiveness John speaks about here is parental, not judicial. Judicial forgiveness means forgiveness from the penalty of sins, which the sinner receives when he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. It is called judicial because it is granted by God acting as Judge. But what about sins which a person commits after conversion? As far as the penalty is concerned, the price has already been paid by the Lord Jesus on the cross of Calvary. But as far as fellowship in the family of God is concerned, the sinning saint needs parental forgiveness, that is, the forgiveness of His Father. He obtains it by confessing his sin. We need judicial forgiveness only once; that takes care of the penalty of all our sins—past, present, and future. But we need parental forgiveness throughout our Christian life. When we confess our sins, we must believe, on the authority of the word of God, that He forgives us. And if He forgives us, we must be willing to forgive ourselves."[6]
     John closes this pericope by saying, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). Sin in this passage translates the Greek verb ἁμαρτάνω hamartano which refers to acts of disobedience to God. The form of the verb is perfect, which refers to past action with abiding results. That is, a denial we sinned in the past that continues into the present. By refusing to call sin for what it is, we are, in effect, calling God a liar, because He says we have sinned. Such behavior is indicative that “His word is not in us” (1 John 10:10b).
     In summary, John wrote to fellow Christians with the desire that they have fellowship with God and other believers. John also made clear that fellowship with God means walking in moral purity. However, because we have sinful natures and commit sinful acts, there’s an ongoing need for us to confess our sins to God in order to be restored to fellowship with Him. And when we confess our sins to God, He is always faithful and righteous to forgive us and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness that we may not be aware of.
 
 
[1] God has revealed Himself through nature (Psa 19:1-2; Rom 1:18-20), the writings of His apostles and prophets (Eph 2:19-20; 3:4-5; 1 Th 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16), and through His Son (Heb 1:1-2).
[2] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 1705.
[3] Zane Clark Hodges, The Epistle of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 60–61.
[4] Ibid., 61.
[5] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, Tenn., Broadman and Holman publishers, 2013), 72.
[6] William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 2310–2311.

Deuteronomy 24:1-13 - Divorce and Remarriage, Loans and Pledges, Kidnapping

     In this section, Moses addresses divorce and remarriage (Deut 24:1-4), military and societal exemptions for a newlywed man (Deut 24:5), respecting those who gave pledges for loans (Deut 24:6, 10-13), kidnapping and selling a fellow Israelite (Deut 24:7), and respecting the authority of the Levitical priests concerning matters of skin disease (Deut 24:8-9). Several of these directives seem to be an expansion of the commandment, “You shall not steal” (Deut 5:19).
Divorce and remarriage
     In the first three verses of this chapter, Moses describes a scenario where divorce occurs (protasis). The specific reason would have been known to Moses’ audience; however, that reason is not known to us. In this scenario, only verse four provides a legislative directive, and that pertains to remarriage (apodosis). Describing the scenario, Moses wrote:
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance." (Deut 24:1-4)
     In the opening verse, Moses describes a man who marries a woman (Deut 24:1a), but then afterwards, he finds “some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house” (Deut 24:1b). Under the Mosaic Law, divorce was permitted, on certain grounds, but not promoted. The indecency found in the woman is taken by some to refer to adultery; however, this is probably not the case, since adultery warranted the death penalty (Deut 22:22), and no such action is called for in this scenario. The word indecency translates the Hebrew noun עֶרְוָה ervah, which generally refers to “nakedness, [or the] genital area of a man or of a woman.”[1] Daniel Block writes:
"Since ʿerwâ usually involves the genitals (Ex 20:26; cf. 28:42), and since this is the woman’s problem, the expression is best interpreted as some menstrual irregularity (cf. Mark 5:25–34). The result is a constant state of impurity, curtailing many normal marital activities (cf. Lev 12:2–8) and rendering her incapable of bearing children. The husband may have learned of her condition after he married her and sought to consummate the marriage. But instead of responding with compassion, he divorced her."[2]
     If this understanding is correct, then the woman is dealing with an issue of physical health that is no fault of her own. The character flaw in this situation actually lies with the husband who extends no favor to her. The word favor translates Hebrew noun חֵן chen, which is commonly translated favor or grace, and refers to a favorable disposition that one person has toward another, especially one in need of grace. In this passage, the man is said to have a disposition of no grace.
     Rather than stand by his wife, the man opts for divorce and to send her away. Under Mosaic Law, divorce was a personal matter of the home and not the public courts. In the divorce process, the man would first write a certificate of divorce, which implied forethought and intention. Second, he would hand the certificate to his wife, legally releasing her from the union. Third, he would send her out of his home. The certificate of divorce would have protected the woman from charges of infidelity and would have granted her the right to remarry. Daniel Block states:
"The certificate was vital for the woman, especially if the document relinquished the husband’s rights to her and her dowry and authorized her to return to her family of origin or to marry another man. From the man’s perspective, the record of the returned dowry would prevent the woman’s family from making further claims against him."[3]
     Unfortunately, in this scenario, the woman marries another man with no grace who, like the first husband, writes her a certificate of divorce and sends her out, or perhaps dies (Deut 24:2-3). Though the woman is free to remarry, Moses issues a directive that prohibits the first husband from taking her back as a wife (Deut 24:4a). Moses gives the reason, saying, “since she has been defiled” (Deut 24:4b). The word defiled translates the Hebrew noun טָמֵא tame which, in this passage, is vague and can mean “to be ceremonially impure or to be immoral in action.”[4] It could be that the woman, in such a situation, might be degraded as mere property to be passed back and forth between men. Whatever the exact meaning, Moses regarded it as “an abomination before the LORD,” saying, “you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deut 24:4c).
Exemptions for a newlywed husband
     Continuing on with the subject of marriage, Moses said, “When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken” (Deut 24:5). In this scenario, a man has taken a new wife and needs to establish his relationship with her. Moses said the man should be free from any military or social duties during his first year of marriage. Warren Wiersbe states, “Any able-bodied man could take the new husband’s place in the army but nobody could take his place at home. His wife would suffer from the pain of separation from her beloved and, if he died in battle, the sorrow of bereavement. This law shows the high value God puts on human love and the responsibilities of marriage.”[5] Both the government and society had no claims upon the man. Staying at home for a year would also have provided time for a child to be conceived and born. If the husband were called to war and killed after the first year, the wife would have a child that might grow up and care for her in her old age. Remember, Moses had previously restricted men who were engaged to be married from military service, saying, “And who is the man that is engaged to a woman and has not married her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her” (Deut 20:7). Daniel Block states, “Stable marriages do not just happen; they take effort and must be built on solid foundations. Deuteronomy 24:5 teaches that when people marry, outside responsibilities and distractions should be reduced to a minimum. While a two-week honeymoon offers hope for a good start to the marriage, it is insufficient to prepare for a life of married bliss.”[6]
Restriction for lenders
     Returning to the subject of making loans to fellow Israelites, Moses said, “No one shall take a handmill or an upper millstone in pledge, for he would be taking a life in pledge” (Deut 24:6). Though some personal items could be given to a lender as a pledge to repay a loan, Moses specifically prohibits taking the handmill or upper millstone as collateral, as this would handicap the family from being able to grind grain into flour, which was necessary for baking bread. This verse probably serves as a prohibition against taking any household item that might impact the family’s ability to meet their basic needs. Peter Craigie states:
"In every Israelite family home, a small milling machine would be a basic and essential part of culinary equipment. Each morning, the housewife would use it to prepare flour in order to provide the family with its daily bread. Thus, to take the millstones (or even just the upper stone, which would make the machine useless) would be to cause real hardship to the family, and would be contrary to the spirit of generosity which should characterize the lender."[7]
     In Moses’ eyes, taking an essential household item as a pledge for a loan was the same as “taking a life in pledge” (Deut 24:6b). This shows that meeting daily essential needs requires the possession and use of physical items which, if one is deprived of, would cause harm. Creditors could require a pledge, but not one that caused harm to the lender or family.
Prohibition against kidnapping
     Moses turns to the subject of stealing a human life, saying, “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deut 24:7). Kidnapping has been a cruel practice for millennia by almost every people group in history. Having addressed the subject of loans, it could be that Moses pictures a situation where a person had defaulted on his loan and the creditor kidnaps the person and “deals with him violently or sells him” (Deut 24:7b). If such a person were to steal the life of another, Moses commands, “then that thief shall die” (Deut 24:7c). This was a restatement of the command Moses gave to the first generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt (Ex 21:16). Eugene Merrill states:
"Such theft of persons was so dastardly a violation of covenant that the perpetrator had to pay with his own life. As with murder or any such assault upon another, the heinousness of the deed lay in its victimizing of one who was the very image of God (cf. Gen 9:6; Deut 5:17). To steal a fellow member of the covenant community was, in effect, to rob God of his most precious possession, a human life. Respect for possessions of another thus reaches its climax in respect for another’s life and independence before God."[8]
     Remember, Moses had previously addressed a legal form of slavery which was a voluntary servitude for a period of six years to pay off a debt (Deut 15:12-18).[9] However, in our current section (Deut 24:7), kidnapping a person and treating him violently or selling him into forced slavery was punishable by death (Ex 21:16).
Respecting the authority of the Levitical Priests
     God had delegated certain responsibilities to the Levitical priests, and this meant they operated with divinely delegate authority. In this section, Moses specifically addresses the function of the priests concerning leprosy, saying, “Be careful against an infection of leprosy, that you diligently observe and do according to all that the Levitical priests teach you; as I have commanded them, so you shall be careful to do. 9 Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on the way as you came out of Egypt” (Deut 24:8-9). Earl Radmacher states, “Leprosy refers to a variety of infectious skin diseases. The disease known today as leprosy, Hansen’s disease, is different from the diseases referred to here.”[10] Moses addresses two issues in this verse. First, those with skin diseases were to submit themselves to the Levitical priests for inspection and care (Lev 13:1-59). Second, Moses references the time when his sister, Miriam, challenged his authority, and God disciplined her by giving her leprosy for a week (Num 12:1-15). God delegates authority to certain persons who serve as leaders (parents, government officials, pastors, etc.), and to disobey them was a to challenge God’s sovereignty, which would bring divine discipline.
Prohibition against lenders keeping certain pledges
     Moses addresses extreme cases of poverty where a person could seek a loan and offer something as a pledge. However, to prevent intimidation by the lender, Moses restricts the lender from entering the private property of the borrower. Moses said, “When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. 11 “You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you” (Deut 24:10-11). The lender could demand a pledge to secure repayment of the loan, but could not enter the borrower’s home and take whatever he wanted. Peter Craigie states, “This requirement protects the privacy of the recipient’s home and leaves to him the choice of the article to be given as collateral for the loan. It means that a man can borrow with honor, without having his personal possessions made open to the creditor for his selection of an item to be taken in pledge.”[11] Such economic practices were to be built on trust and respect for the other person.
     Moses adds, “If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. 13 When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God” (Deut 24:12-13). Some were so poor they only thing they could offer as a pledge was their cloak. This was an item used by the poor person that served as a blanket during the night. Here, the lender could accept the cloak as a pledge for repayment of a loan, but he could not keep it constantly in his possession, but needed to return it to the borrow at sunset so it could be used to keep him warm at night. If the lender would follow this practice, God promised to bless him (Deut 24:13b), and said, “it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God” (Deut 24:13c; cf. Ex 22:26-27).
Present Application
     The issue of divorce and remarriage is an issue among Christians living in the dispensation of the Church age. In the New Testament, the Pharisees confronted Jesus about Deuteronomy 24:1-4, asking Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matt 19:3). Jesus answered by giving God’s ideal for marriage, which was no divorce (Matt 19:4-5), citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Based on God’s original design for marriage, the Lord states the couple “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matt 19:6a), saying, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt 19:6b). When the Pharisees pressed Jesus, asking why Moses allowed the husband to divorce his wife (Matt 19:7), Jesus answered, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” (Matt 19:8). Jesus then said, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt 19:9). Here, adultery was grounds that permitted divorce, though it was not commanded. However, if divorce occurred for this reason, the offended spouse was free to remarry. Other grounds for legitimate remarriage include the death of a spouse (1 Cor 7:39; cf. Rom 7:1-3), or the abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7:10-16).
 
 
[1] Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 882.
[2] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 558.
[3] Ibid., 558–559.
[4] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 944.
[5] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 147.
[6] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 564.
[7] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 307.
[8] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 320.
[9] Once the six years were completed, such individuals would regain their freedom, and receive a generous severance package of livestock, grain, and wine, which was intended to jumpstart their economic independence (Deut 15:12-14; cf. Ex 21:5-6). Some made the choice to become a lifetime servant, and this occurred from a motivation of love, because their employer had been good and cared for them (Deut 15:16-17). The common Hebrew servant who surrendered his/her freedom to serve another was limited to six years labor and was guaranteed freedom in the seventh year (Deut 15:12-14; cf. Ex 21:1-2). And if a slave was injured by his owner, the law demanded he be set free (Ex 21:26-27). And the Mosaic Law allowed for an Israelite slave to be redeemed by family (Lev 25:47-49a), or he could redeem himself if he acquired the means (Lev 25:49b-53). Furthermore, Israelite slaves would automatically go free in the year of Jubilee (Lev 25:10, 40, 54).
[10] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 258.
[11] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 308.

Deuteronomy 23:19-25 - And the Christian with Integrity

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In this section, Moses addresses the matter of charging interest on financial loans (Deut 23:19-20), the importance of keeping vows to God (Deut 23:21-23), and respecting a neighbor’s property (Deut 23:24-25).   
Charging Interest on Financial Loans
     Israel was a theocracy, one kingdom under God, who was their Judge, Lawgiver, and King (Isa 33:22). As a theocracy, Israelites were to have a sense of corporate responsibility for each other, as they were all in the covenant community, a special people, chosen by God to be His holy representatives to others (Lev 11:45; 20:26; Deut 7:6; 14:2). This had practical application in everyday matters such as loans to the poor. Moses said, “You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest” (Deut 23:19). Two groups are assumed in this verse, the wealthy and the poor. This shows that in a theocracy where God Himself rules, there would economic stratification. Socialistic and Communistic ideas of redistribution of wealth is a foreign concept to the Bible and tantamount to theft. Biblically, God directs wealthy Israelites to deal generously with their poor countrymen. It was fine to give them loans to help them when they were in a disadvantaged place, but they were not to charge interest (Ex 22:25-27; Lev 25:35-38). Eugene Merrill states, “Proper treatment of a brother in such matters would ensure the blessing of God in the land of promise (v. 20). God himself gives freely and graciously, so why should his people profit from the misfortune of one another (cf. Lev 25:35–38)?”[1] Not only was a loan to be made to a poor Israelite without interest, but if that Israelite could not repay the loan at the time of the sabbatical year, the loan was automatically forgiven (Deut 15:1-2).[2]
     However, for foreigners who were outside the covenant community, Israelites could charge interest on loans. Moses said, “You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest” (Deut 23:20a). Foreigners (Heb. נָכְרִי nokri) were those who lived among Israelites but were not part of the covenant community. Nothing is said about the resident alien (Heb. גֵּר ger) who resided among the Israelites, who enjoyed greater benefits than the foreigner because he/she had committed themselves to the Lord.  Foreigners might see Israel as a growing nation with strong economic possibilities and want to interact with them in business ventures. If a foreigner wanted to take out a loan from an Israelite, the latter was granted permission to charge interest on the former. Peter Craigie comments, “The Israelite was permitted, however, to lend on interest to a foreigner. Since the foreigner was not a member of the covenant community, it was not considered necessary to treat him in the same way as a fellow Israelite.”[3]Here was just economic discrimination where membership had its privileges. If Israel would follow these commands, like all the others, the benefit would be, “so that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess” (Deut 23:20b). God’s blessing would follow obedience (cf., Deut 14:29; 15:10; 24:19; 30:15-16). Daniel Block writes, “This policy seeks to inspire generosity by reminding Israelites that Yahweh’s generosity toward them is contingent on their generosity toward each other. The motive clause reflects Yahweh’s desire to bless them in the land in every effort to which they put their hands.”[4]
     There is no theocracy in the world today; however, just nations do well to learn from the economic principles of the Bible. God’s laws to Israel concerning money assume a free-market economy where individuals could pursue economic self-interest, but not in such a way so as to exploit a disadvantaged member of the covenant community. Today, a free-market economy is preferred over other economic systems, as it does more to elevate the poor in a community by allowing them to make good financial choices and benefit from those investments. However, those operating by selfish values can manipulate such a system, as they can any system, even one designed by God. A free-market system, by itself, does not secure a moral outcome or fair treatment of the poor. However, when God’s values for the poor undergird those with economic wisdom, it meets His approval and others are blessed by their open-handedness.
Keeping Vows to God
     Integrity matters to God, especially as it pertains to keeping a promise we make to Him or others. In ancient Israel, it was permissible to make a vow to God in which one promised to give something to Him, usually as an expression of gratitude for His goodness. However, when a vow was made, it obligated the promiser to fulfill his word. Moses said, “When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. 22 However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you” (Deut 23:21-22). This directive assumes individual property rights, and the right of volition to give freely what one has to another. There is no compulsion. However, if one vowed to give something to another, it meant the thing actually belonged to the other person, although it was not yet in their possession, it was theirs to claim. In this case, the vow was made to God, who holds the promiser accountable for what was promised. Failure to keep a vow was regarded as a crime by the Lord. However, if His people refrained from making a vow altogether, it was not a sin. The property was theirs to keep as their own.
     But if one made a vow to the Lord, to give Him something as a free expression of gratitude, then that one must not renege on his/her vow. God said, “You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised” (Deut 23:23). A word released cannot be taken back, and it’s better to pause and consider one’s words before speaking, especially is it relates to promises made to God. Victor Matthews states, “In the Decalogue is the commandment that no one should ‘misuse the name of the Lord’ (Ex 20:7). When a vow using God’s name is spoken, it brings God into contract with that person. Thus, any failure to carry out the stipulations of the vow breaks the contract and subjects that person to divine wrath.”[5] And Peter Craigie adds, “The principle underlying the injunction is rooted in the nature of the covenant. God spoke His promise in words to His people; His spoken word was reliable and would be fulfilled—it was not a spoken bribe to secure the allegiance of the people. To make a vow to God, then fail to fulfil it, would be contrary to the whole spirit of the covenant.”[6] Solomon speaks to the matter of vows, saying:
"When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! 5 It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? (Eccl 5:4-6)"
Respecting Property Rights
     Israelites were to have a sense of community and regard for each other’s wellbeing. Concerning an Israelite traveler, the Lord said, “When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket. 25 When you enter your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deut 23:24-25). Here we observe both corporate and individual rights. Corporately, traveling Israelites could eat from their neighbor’s crops, whether grapes or grain, and this until they were full. However, they were not permitted to harvest their neighbor’s crops beyond what their bellies could hold. To take more than one’s stomach could hold was theft. This was a divine mandate that provided for a traveler to benefit from a wealthy landowner, but also protected the landowner from exploitation. All Israelites, whether wealthy or poor, were to remember that God owned the land (Lev 25:23), and He had the right to instruct His tenants about how they should manage their property, especially as it related to those within the community. Eugene Merrill states, “The allowance for the passerby was, no doubt, to create an atmosphere of general grace and hospitality and to provide practical aid for the traveler who, in those ancient days, might not be able to carry sufficient food supplies for a long journey and who would have no way of preserving certain foodstuffs from spoilage.”[7]
     Jesus and His disciples followed this law when traveling. Mark’s Gospel records, “And it happened that He was passing through the grain fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain” (Mark 2:23). Earl Radmacher states, “When Jesus and His disciples picked grain in open fields, they were following the common practice allowed by this regulation. However, the Pharisees challenged Jesus because they did it on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28).”[8] When Jesus was charged by the Pharisees that He and His disciples were breaking the law, what they were breaking was manmade rabbinical law, not biblical law. The biblical record is that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21), was “without sin” (Heb 4:15), and “in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).
Present Application
     Words are the currency of the heart, for by them, we reveal our moral wealth or poverty. For some, a person’s word is gold. We trust what they say is true and that they will keep their promises, even at great cost to themselves. Faithfulness to keep a promise is a measure of one’s integrity. God wants us to have integrity, because He has integrity. To say God has integrity means He is honest in nature, that He always speaks truth, and that He is faithful to keep His Word. Because of who He is, God does not lie, and when He makes a promise, He always keeps it. The Bible reveals, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Num 23:19; cf. 1 Sam 15:29). Elsewhere it is written that God “cannot lie” (Tit 1:2), and that it “is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18a). Scripture reveals that even “if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13). This reveals the character and immutability of God as well as the integrity of His Word, which is comforting to His people, especially since there is much falsehood and many promise-breakers in the world.
     As Christians, God calls us to be like Him, to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15) and to keep our promises to others. Warren Wiersbe writes, “The foundations of society today are eroding because of unkept promises, whether they be official contracts, marriage vows, political pledges, or words spoken on the witness stand. We expect the Lord to keep His promises, and He expects us to keep ours. Truth is the cement that holds society together.”[9] But truthful lips and a faithful life are the fruit of a heart that is filled with God and His Word; a heart committed to walk in godly integrity. 
   In Psalm 15, David writes about the one “who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart” (Psa 15:2).[10] One of the characteristics of the person who walks with integrity is that, “he swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Psa 15:4b). Other translations read, “he keeps his word whatever the cost” (Psa 15:4 CSB), and “he makes firm commitments and does not renege on his promise” (Psa 15:4 NET), and “keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind” (Psa 15:4 NIV). This behavior describes a mature believer who has a well-developed walk with the Lord. Concerning Psalm 15:4, Dr. Allen Ross comments:
"Here the psalmist is dealing with faithfulness, keeping one’s word, even if it proves costly or inconvenient. The righteous must not change their mind to avoid an unexpected painful outcome; they must keep their word even if it means they suffer loss of some kind. In fact, to take an oath and not keep it would be to take the name of the LORD in vain. It would be better not to take the oath in the first place if possible."[11]
     The Christian who has a deep concern for integrity, truth, and faithfulness will keep his/her word, for honor is of more value than the pain of loss, whatever it may be. Solomon tells us, “Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool” (Prov 19:1), and, “Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than he who is crooked though he be rich” (Prov 28:6). This second proverb reveals a situation where a person chose godly integrity over crookedness, even though it resulted in financial poverty.
     Three closing points. First, having Christian integrity does not mean we become sinless. As Christians, we still possess our fallen natures, live in a fallen world, and face temptations and attacks from various sources that seek to undermine our walk with God. Even the godliest of saints sin (i.e., Moses, David, Peter, John, etc.).[12] The reality is there will be times when we fail to live by godly integrity, when we fail to keep our word, both to the Lord and others. But relapse does not have to mean collapse, for if there is humility, we can come before God’s “throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb 4:16). And if we confess our sins to Him, “He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Second, our failings, though many, do not destroy the Lord’s faithfulness to us, for though “we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13). God has blessed us with many promises (2 Pet 1:4), and He has perfect integrity, always keeps His Word and never fails. Third, God wants us to develop godly integrity so our character and life measure up to His righteous standards as revealed in Scripture. But developing godly integrity is the pursuit of a lifetime, as we make moment by moment choices to submit ourselves to God, to learn and live His Word, to be honest in who we are, to speak truth in love, and to keep our promises to others, even if the cost is great. As Christians who want to serve the Lord, may we rise to pursue such an honorable life, for God’s glory, and the benefit of others.
 
[1] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 315.
[2] Of course, a wealthy Israelite might have a concern that a needy brother would ask for help near the seventh year, just prior the time when loans were automatically forgiven, and the loan would become a gift with the lender losing all hope of repayment. If the wealthy Israelite failed to obey the Lord and withheld the loan to the poor person, then the poor “may cry to the LORD” in such a situation, which meant he would take his case before the Judge of all the earth and, it would “be a sin” in the one who was stingy. Here, it is revealed that the poor had legal rights in God’s theocratic kingdom, which is revealed in other parts of Scripture (Deut 27:19; Pro 29:7; Isa 10:1-2). The cure of a hostile attitude toward the poor was a generous heart and an open hand. This cure was to be self-administered. Failure to be kind and open-handed would bring about God’s cursing, but obedience would secure His blessings (Deut 7:11-13; 11:13-15, 26-28).
[3] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 303.
[4] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 548.
[5] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 23:21–23.
[6] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 303.
[7] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 316.
[8] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 258.
[9] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Counted, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 133.
[10] The believer’s walk (הָלַךְ halak) is idiomatic of his/her behavior or lifestyle. It is the fruit of life that reveals the root of the heart. In this context, righteousness (צֶדֶק tsedeq) refers to a life in ethical conformity to God and His Word. And truth (אֱמֶת emeth) denotes what is dependable or reliable, and refers to God’s absolute and unchanging Word, that should fill the heart of the believer.
[11] Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms 1–89: Commentary, vol. 1, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2011–2013), 393.
[12] Moses sinned when he disobeyed God by striking the rock twice rather than speaking to it (Num 20:6-11). David sinned when he had an affair with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah (2 Sam 11:1-17), as well as when he took a census in Israel (1 Ch 21:1-8). Peter resisted Christ going to the cross (Matt 16:21-23), and later denied Him three times (Luke 22:54-61). John was rebuked twice for worshipping an angel (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9).

Jeremiah 36:1-32 - Jeremiah Commanded to Write a Scroll

In this pericope, God gave His Word to Jeremiah, who dictated it to his friend, Baruch, who wrote it down on a scroll (Jer 36:1-4). Because Jeremiah was under some restraint, he instructed his friend, Baruch, to read it publicly in the temple (Jer 36:5-8), during a period of a fast (Jer 36:9-10). Baruch’s reading the scroll caught the attention of a city official, Micaiah, who reported it to the royal palace (Jer 36:11-13). Baruch was then asked to read the scroll to other city officials in the palace (Jer 36:14-19), who then took the scroll and had it read to King Jehoiakim, who rejected the message and burned the book (Jer 36:20-26). However, the scroll was rewritten (Jer 36:27-28), and God’s judgment was pronounced on Jehoiakim and his household because of the king’s negative volition (Jer 36:29-32). For complete study notes, see following link: https://thinkingonscripture.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Jeremiah-36.pdf 

Deuteronomy 23:9-18 - Keep military camps clean, treat runaway slaves justly, and no cultic prostitution

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In this section, Moses addresses maintaining purity in military camps (Deut 23:9-14), providing refuge for runaway foreign slaves (Deut 23:15-16), and a prohibition against men and women serving as pagan cult prostitutes (Deut 23:17-18).   
Purity in Military Camps
     Moses opens this section, saying, “When you go out as an army against your enemies, you shall keep yourself from every evil thing” (Deut 23:9). Here, the military represented a specific group within the nation of Israel, and they were called to maintain purity in their military camp. The word evil translates the Hebrew adjective רָע ra, which commonly denotes “bad, evil, wicked, [or] no good.”[1] The word often refers to what is morally reprehensible to God; however, in the following verses (Deut 23:10-14), it refers to what is physically impure among God’s people. Being the source of absolute holiness, God determines and declares what is good or evil.
     Moses continued, saying, “If there is among you any man who is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he must go outside the camp; he may not reenter the camp. But it shall be when evening approaches, he shall bathe himself with water, and at sundown he may reenter the camp” (Deut 23:10-11). The nocturnal emission is not identified. It could refer to an accidental nighttime seminal discharge, which a man might experience when away from his wife for a period of time. Moses had previously mentioned such a discharge (cf., Lev 15:16-17), which rendered a man ceremonially unclean, not morally unclean. However, the context implies that the nighttime emission more likely refers to one who urinated in his bed. Peter Craigie states:
"The first example relates to a man who is unclean because of what happens at night. On the analogy of Leviticus 15:16, these words are often interpreted as signifying the nocturnal, involuntary emission of semen; the Hebrew in this passage, however, is different and less specific than that of Leviticus 15:16, and it is possible that something else is intended. The references may simply be to urinating in the camp at night, either involuntarily or else because a man was too lazy (or tired) to get up and go outside his camp. This interpretation seems to provide a more natural parallel to the legislation contained in Deuteronomy 23:13-15, and it would thus refer to a more typical and common occurrence in any military camp. A man who had behaved in this manner was to remain outside the camp the following day; toward evening he would wash himself, again for hygienic and ritual reasons, and he would be permitted to reenter the camp after sunset."[2]
     This law was to go into effect after Israel had entered the land of Canaan; at which time, they would find themselves facing an enemy. Moses continued his instruction, saying, “You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, 13 and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement” (Deut 23:12-13). Some pagan cultures, such as the Egyptians, used animal feces as part of their medical practices. Fawver and Overstreet write:
"Much of the information found in the Egyptian medical texts was medically hazardous. For example, donkey feces were used for the treatment of splinters, which probably increased the incidence of tetanus because of tetanus spores present in feces. Crocodile feces were used for birth control. In contrast Moses wrote that God instructed the Israelites to cover their excrement because it was “unclean” (Deut 23:12–13). At no time did Moses resort to adding the popular medical techniques of his day, though he was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22), which certainly included their medical wisdom."[3]
     Moses concludes, saying, “Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you” (Deut 23:14). Here is the primary rationale for maintaining purity in the camp. When going out to battle, the Israelites must constantly be aware that God is among them, walking in their midst, inspecting the camp for cleanliness. God is holy and He expects His people to be holy (c.f., Lev 19:1-2). In these verses, cleanliness was an act of holiness in God’s sight. Warren Wiersbe states:
"This section applied to Israel’s soldiers when they were encamped away from home. The basic principle was that they treat the camp as they would their land at home, for the Lord was with them even on the battlefield, walking in their midst. The idol-worshiping nations believed that they left their gods behind when they went to another country, but Israel’s God was always with them, for He is the God of all the earth. If a soldier had become unclean at home, he would have to leave the community, wash, and return the next day; and that same rule applied in the camp. The men were also to have a place outside the camp for disposing of their excrement. This would not only keep them from being defiled, but it would also promote hygiene."[4]
Protecting Runaway Slaves
     Concerning runaway slaves from a foreign country, Moses wrote, “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him” (Deut 23:15-16). The passage considers slaves who ran away from their foreign master to seek refuge in Israel. Such a scenario might be tied to the previous section pertaining to going out to war. It’s possible a foreign slave might be near Israel because he/she was brought there by a commander or soldier. Being in proximity might have afforded the slave the opportunity to run away and seek refuge within the Israelite community. If this happened, God’s people were to allow such a one to live in their midst for protection and freedom, to reside in whatever town they wanted, and not to take advantage of them or mistreat them. A modified form of slavery was permitted in ancient Israel, in which a person who owed a debt could obligate himself to his debtor to pay off a debt. This contract arrangement was voluntary for both parties and had a divinely set term limit of six years, after which, the slave must be set free (Deut 15:12). Furthermore, the slave was to be set free with a liberal severance package adequate to jumpstart his own economic wellbeing (Deut 15:13-15). Such actions were predicated on the fact that Israel, as a nation, had been enslaved in Egypt, and they were to regard willful Israelite slaves with compassion and fairness. However, if an Israelite served his six-year contract and came to love his master because he was treated very well, he could voluntarily enter into a lifetime agreement of service (Deut 15:16-18).
Prohibition Against Cultic Prostitution
     Moses continued, saying, “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute” (Deut 23:17). Here was a prohibition against young Israelite women or men from being a cult prostitute in a pagan temple. Canaanite parents were known to give their sons and daughters to serve as prostitutes in their worship of pagan idols. In such situations, the children were exploited by the parents for sinful purposes.[5] Israel was not to be like the pagan cultures around them. They were to be holy. For a young woman or man to engage in such activity would imply some residual Canaanite influence in the land. Jack Deere writes, “The prohibition here was probably intended to prevent a foreign religion being practiced by Israelites, and to keep the worship of the Lord from being contaminated by temple prostitution.”[6] Unfortunately, this command to prohibit Israelites from serving as temple prostitutes was not followed by later generations (see 1 Ki 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Ki 23:7). Eugene Merrill writes:
"So-called cultic prostitution was widespread among the fertility cults of the ancient Near Eastern world that saw in its employment a means of achieving productivity of plant, animal, and even human life. Whole guilds of male and female temple personnel participated in grossly sexual rituals designed to induce the various gods and goddesses to release their procreative powers on the earth. Nowhere was this more commonly practiced than among the peoples of Syria and Canaan, hence the special need to warn Israel against it."[7]
     Moses further states, “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deut 23:18). The male prostitute is called a dog because his brutish behavior is like that of a dog, which indiscriminately mounts another canine for sexual gratification. Whether a female or male prostitute, their wages were regarded as dirty money that was not acceptable to the Lord. Giving to the Lord’ work is a valid act, but what is given must be derived from honest work done in an honest way.
Present Application
     Through our study of Deuteronomy, we learn that God is concerned about just laws and moral behavior among His people. God’s laws through Moses were just laws, because they derived from a righteous God. As a theocracy, God was their Judge, Lawgiver, and King (Isa 33:22). Though the church is not under the Mosaic Law as the rule for life, we still have directives to follow, and these are always for our good and the good of others. As Christians, we are not called to form a nation like Israel, but are to go out to many nations (Matt 28:19-20), and this to preach the gospel and God’s Word to all who will listen. As Christians living in a fallen world, we realize that a just and moral nation is the product of a just and moral people. As Christians, we desire morality and justice in our society. However, such morality never occurs through social or political force. We have failed as Christians as soon as we seek to politicize our message and control others through legislative means. We realize true and lasting transformation must occur from the inside out, as people are regenerated through faith in Christ and advance to spiritual maturity through learning and living God’s Word, not by a forced morality imposed through the halls of congress. Where Christianity prevails in a society, social evils will decline, and freedom will be maintained by a moral and just people. John Adams knew this very well and said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
     As Christians, we are called to share the gospel that people might receive new life and be liberated from Satan’s slave-market. If a person rejects Jesus as Savior, then that person chooses to continue as a slave to Satan and his world-system. It’s unfortunate, but it’s their choice, and it must be respected. God is a perfect Gentleman and He does not bully anyone to accept His offer of salvation, nor to live according to His directives. If people turn away from Him and suppress His truth in unrighteousness, then He will let them go their own way. Concerning those who “suppress God’s truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18), three times it is written that He “gave them over” to “the lusts of their hearts” (Rom 1:24), and “to degrading passions” (Rom 1:26), and “to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper” (Rom 1:28). Once God permits a person to operate by his/her sinful passions, they are given a measure of freedom to live as they want. These are described as “being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful” (Rom 1:29-31).  
     Such people live according to laws of their own making, with no greater source of morality than that which can be derived from their own fallen hearts. However, because they have rejected God, they have no basis for moral absolutes by which to declare anything ethically right or wrong. There is only subjective opinion, which fluctuates from person to person and group to group. If God and His Word are rejected, we’re left with no moral absolutes, and then what is, is right, and the conversation is over. Morality then becomes a matter of what the majority wants, or what an elite, or tyrant, can impose on others. Francis Schaeffer wrote: 
"If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions."[8]
     As biblically minded Christians, we realize that without God, there is no final basis for ethics or laws other than finite and flawed people. If there is no God, then right and wrong are reduced to opinion, and cries for justice become nothing more than psychology reports from dissatisfied people. It’s interesting that people cry out for personal and social justice because they’re naturally wired that way. But for the atheist, such inclinations are either a learned behavior based on arbitrary social norms, or a biological quirk that developed from accidental evolutionary processes.
     As believers, we know God exists, that He is there, and He is not silent. God reveals Himself in the human heart (Rom 1:19), through nature (Psa 19:1-2; Rom 1:20), through His Son (Heb 1:1-2), and through His written Word (Psa 119:160; John 17:17; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Furthermore, God has placed within each person a conscience, and this operates according to a morality God has infused within each person. Paul wrote, “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (Rom 2:14-15). Human conscience, when operating properly, serves as God’s moral compass placed within each person. People intuitively know that God exists (Rom 1:18-20), and that certain laws are right (Rom 2:14-15). We don’t have to persuade anyone. People intuitively know God exists, that He is just, and that actions such as murder, abortion, lying, stealing, and adultery are wrong.
     For those who have positive volition, they will hear the Christian message and turn to Christ as Savior, believing Jesus “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4). Once saved, they can then begin the process of renewing their minds according to God’s Word (Rom 12:1-2), advance to spiritual maturity (Eph 4:11-13; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18), live by faith (Heb 10:38; 11:6), operate in the power of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18; Gal 5:16), walk in a manner consistent with their new identity in Christ (Eph 4:1), and manifest the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their daily lives (Gal 5:22-23). Such Christians will become the moral backbone of any society, which will be richer because of their walk with the Lord.
 
[1] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
[2] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 299.
[3] Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, “Moses and Preventive Medicine,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 275.
[4] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 158–159.
[5] The sinful exploitation of children continues today. I knew a girl in Las Vegas who, when she was 11, her mother used to prostitute her out to men in order to maintain the mother’s cocaine habit. This went on for several years. That a parent would do such a thing to a young child reveals the depravity of the human heart. The past few decades have seen a global rise in kidnapping and child exploitation as part of the sex-trade. Sin and evil still exist.
[6] Jack S. Deere, “Deuteronomy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 304.
[7] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 313.
[8] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, 50th L’Abri Anniversary Edition. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 145.

Deuteronomy 23:1-8 - Immigration Laws in Ancient Israel

     In Deuteronomy 23:1-8, Moses addresses immigration laws in ancient Israel, limiting who could worship in the assembly of the Lord. Moses opens, saying, “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:1). The phrase, “one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off” is rendered more literally as “a man whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off” (CSB). The practice of emasculation was done on servants who guarded a man’s harem, and was practiced by men who were radical devotees of pagan worship. Daniel Block states, “this prohibition seems have been influenced by pagan religious rites of self-castration, perhaps as an ascetic act of self-torment or in pious imitation of the gods.”[1] The phrase, the assembly of the LORD (קָהָל יהוה qahal Yahweh), occurs six times in this section (vss. 1-8), showing God had concern for the sanctity of the congregation that met Him for instruction or worship. Previously, Moses had emphasized the positives of gathering for worship (Deut 12:7, 12; 16:11, 14), but here emphasized the negatives that excluded one from fellowship. Being excluded from worship among the Israelites did not mean one was excluded from the covenant community as a whole. Earl Kalland states, “Most likely this law did not exclude one from residence in areas where Israel was to live but rather from the benefits of full-fledged citizenship and most particularly (and maybe only) from participation in religious rites in the homes and at the tabernacle and later at the temple.”[2] Such exclusions based on physical defects were not limited to non-Israelites, as Levites with physical defects could not serve as priests at the tabernacle/temple (Lev 21:16-23). Even animals with physical defects were not eligible for sacrifice (Lev 1:10; 4:32).
     Another person excluded from gathering at the assembly of the LORD was one born of illegitimate birth. Moses said, “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:2). The phrase, one of illegitimate birth, translates the Hebrew noun מַמְזֵר mamzer, which refers to a “bastard, [or] child of incest.”[3] This could refer either to one who was the offspring of a pagan prostitute (cf., Deut 23:17-18), or perhaps from an incestuous relationship, which was practiced among the Canaanites (Lev 18-20). Such an exclusion might have sought to deter Israelites from pursuing immoral relationships.  
     Moses continued, saying, “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, 4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you” (Deut 23:3-4). It should be remembered that the Ammonites and Moabites were the offspring of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his two daughters (Gen 19:30-38). Whatever their parentage, God prohibited the Ammonites and Moabites from participating in the worship of the Lord because they sought to curse His people (Num 22:1-6, 22-24, 31-33). Thomas Constable writes:
"The main reason for the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites was the extreme hostility that these nations demonstrated toward Israel when Israel was approaching the Promised Land. Evidently Ammon participated with Moab in resisting Israel’s passage, in seeking to curse the Israelites with Balaam’s assistance, and or in corrupting the Israelites through sacred prostitution (Num 22–25)."[4]
     As Israel traveled toward Canaan, they were met with hostility and opposition as Balak, the king of Moab (Num 22:4), hired Balaam to curse the Lord’s people (Num 22:5-6). The word curse translates the Hebrew verb קָלַל qalal, which means to treat as small, little, or insignificant. This same word was used by God when He set forth the promises pertaining to the Abrahamic covenant, saying He would bless or curse others depending on how they treated Abraham and his descendants. God told Abraham, the progenitor of Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses [קָלַל qalal] you I will curse [אָרָר arar]” (Gen 12:3). Allen Ross sates, “Those who blessed Abram would receive blessing from God; that is, those who supported and endorsed him in his faith would actually find enrichment. Conversely, if anyone treated Abram lightly, he must be cursed.”[5] God’s promise to bless or curse was based on an unconditional covenant that started with Abraham and extended to his descendants forever (Gen 17:7; Num 24:9). Concerning the curse in Genesis 12:3, Arnold Fruchtenbaum states:
"The first word for curse is kalal, which means “to treat lightly,” “to hold in contempt,” or “to curse.” To merely treat Abram and the Jews lightly is to incur the curse of God. The second word for curse used in this phrase (him that curses you will I curse) is aor, from the Hebrew root arah, which means “to impose a barrier,” “to ban.” This is a much stronger word for curse than the first one in the phrase…Therefore, even a light curse against Abram or against the Jews will bring a heavier curse from God."[6]
     This cursing from God is seen in His opposition the Ammonites and Moabites when they sought to curse His people. Moses tells us, “Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you” (Deut 23:5). God’s people were under His divine protection, and no satanically inspired curse would penetrate the wall of fire around them. Solomon wrote, “Like a flitting sparrow or a fluttering swallow, an undeserved curse goes nowhere” (Prov 26:2 CSB). In fact, not only did God prohibit Balaam from cursing the Israelites, He directed him to bless them instead (Num. 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9). Balaam’s actions angered Balak, who said, “I called you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have persisted in blessing them these three times!” (Num 24:10). God’s protection from opposing military and spiritual forces was because He loved His people and desired their best. For Israel, knowing God’s blessing was tied to their obedience to His directives (Deut 11:26-28). When they stepped outside God’s will, they opened themselves up to all forms of evil as well as divine discipline.
     Because the Ammonites and Moabites sought Israel’s harm at the time of their journey from Kadesh Barnea into the land of Canaan, God said, “You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days” (Deut 23:6). Here was the boomerang effect, in which those who sought to curse God’s people wound up bringing a curse upon themselves. This verse should be understood as referring to those who continued in hatred and hostility toward God’s people and were excluded from treaty relationships. Daniel Block writes:
"Previously Moses had noted Yahweh’s love as the motivating force behind his election and rescue of Israel from Egypt (Deut 4:37; 7:8) and his lavish blessing (Deut 7:12), but here it underlies Yahweh’s protection from hostile military and spiritual forces. Because the Moabites and Ammonites had opposed Yahweh and his agenda regarding the Israelites, the Israelites are never to seek their peace or their welfare. Since “a treaty of friendship” functions as a general expression for well-being in covenantal contexts, this may be a ban on treaties with Ammonites and Moabites."[7]
     But God’s dealing with Ammonites and Moabites did not exclude displays of grace. Remember, God had previously given the Ammonites and Moabites land south of Israel, and His people were to leave them alone (Deut 2:9, 19). Though the Ammonites and Moabites were collectively under divine judgment, and this because of their negative volition and hostility toward Him, He knew there would be descendants who would trust in Him and become part of the blessed community. This was the case with Ruth the Moabitess, who loved God and His people (Ruth 1:16-17), and was even included in the line of Christ (Ruth 4:13; Matt 1:5). Eugene Merrill writes:
"Disbarment from the assembly was not synonymous with exclusion from the covenant community itself as the one example of Ruth the Moabite makes clear. Having determined to return with her Israelite mother-in-law to Bethlehem, she vowed: “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). This was more than mere wishful thinking or personal resolve, for Ruth went on to marry a leading citizen of Bethlehem (4:13), and she eventually became a great-grandmother of King David (4:21). There can be no doubt that Ruth was welcomed among the people of the Lord as one of their own though presumably never with access to the assembly."[8]
     In contrast to the hostility of Ammonites and Moabites, Moses said, “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land” (Deut 23:7). The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (Gen 36:1, 8), who was born to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 25:21-25), and therefore in the Abrahamic line and biologically related to Israel as a “brother.” Furthermore, Israel was not to detest the Egyptians. Though Israel had lived in Egyptian captivity for four centuries, their basic needs of safety, shelter, and food were met. Though Pharaoh and his administration were hostile to Israel, it does not appear this was the case with the Egyptian people themselves. As a result, Israelites were not to treat the Egyptians in a negative way. God Himself opened the door for the Egyptians, saying, “The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:8). This meant that after a time of exclusion, Egyptians could be allowed to worship in Israel alongside Israelites, assuming they had trusted in Yahweh and were willing to abide by His directives in the covenant community.
Present Application
     All Christians are called to walk with the Lord and to submit ourselves to Him for service. This means, in part, devoting ourselves to the study of Scripture (2 Tim 2:15; 1 Pet 2:2), offering our bodies for service to the Lord (Rom 12:1-2), living holy lives (1 Pet 1:15-16), regularly confessing our sins to God (1 John 1:6-9), sharing the gospel with others (Mark 16:15; Rom 15:15-16), assembling for worship (Heb 10:25), offering praise to God (Heb 13:15), doing good works (Gal 6:10; Heb 10:24), sharing our resources with others (Heb 13:16; cf. Phil 4:18), living selflessly for the benefit of others (Phil 2:17; cf. Phil 1:21-26; 2:3-4), praying constantly (1 Th 5:17), giving thanks (1 Th 5:18), and walking in love (Eph 5:1-2; cf. 1 Pet 1:22). These are just a few of the Christian duties that are to be obeyed by all believers.
     However, apart from the general duties of all Christians, there are specific qualifications for some who would serve in a special way. For example, serving as a church elder or deacon means meeting certain qualifications; specifically, church elders are appointed by God (Acts 20:28; cf. Eph 4:11), consist of men only (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6; cf. 1 Tim 2:12-14), and must be doctrinally, morally, and spiritually mature (1 Tim 3:1-7).[9] Failure to meet these qualifications disqualifies one to serve as a church elder or deacon within the local church.
     Furthermore, there are some Christians who should be excluded from Christian fellowship, and these include believers who are continually teaching false doctrines or pursuing sin (this is not the occasional sin, but ongoing sin that harms the spiritual walk of others). The reason we should avoid such persons is partly because “bad associations corrupt good morals” (1 Cor 15:33). When writing to Christians in Corinth, Paul said, “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor 5:11). Disassociation was for the purpose of maintaining personal holiness with the Lord. We always hope the sinning Christian will come to his/her senses and come back into fellowship; however, we must maintain distance until they do. In another place Paul wrote, “I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Rom 16:17). And, “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us” (2 Th 3:6). Such actions are never easy, for we love fellow believers and desire friendship with them. However, our walk with God must always take priority, for He is our greatest Friend, and allegiance to Him secures for us all that is strong and good and meaningful in life. And if/when the erring believer turns back to the Lord and resumes their walk-in-the-Word, then all will be as it should, and fellowship within the Christian community can be restored.
 
 
[1] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 534–535.
[2] Earl S. Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 140.
[3] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 561.
[4] Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), Dt 23:1.
[5] Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 263.
[6] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Ariel’s Bible Commentary: The Book of Genesis, 1st ed. (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2008), 242.
[7] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 536.
[8] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 309.
[9] The function pastors is to solve doctrinal problems in the church through biblical discussion and research (Acts 15:4-11, cf. Acts 16:4), work with “the whole church” on ministry matters (Acts 15:22), shepherd the church through general oversight (Acts 20:17; 28), guard against false teachers and their false doctrines (Acts 20:28-32), guide believers to spiritual maturity (Eph 4:11-14), be servant-leaders (1 Th 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17), work hard at “preaching and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17; cf. Gal 6:6; Eph 4:11-14; 1 Th 5:12), receive financial support from those who benefit from their ministry (Gal 6:6; 1 Tim 5:17-18), and offer support and prayer for those who suffer (Jam 5:14).

Deuteronomy 22:13-30 - Sundry Laws About Marital Infidelity

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In this pericope, Moses provides laws pertaining to sexual morality in marriage and society.
     Moses opens this section by addressing sexual purity before marriage, saying, “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin…’” (Deut 22:13-14). In this scenario, a man takes a wife and has sexual intercourse with her, but afterwards becomes hostile toward her, charging her with marriage disloyalty. The phrase turns against her translates the Hebrew verb שָׂנֵא sane, which means, to hate. The word “expresses an emotional attitude toward persons and things which are opposed, detested, despised and with which one wishes to have no contact or relationship. It is therefore the opposite of love. Whereas love draws and unites, hate separates and keeps distant.”[1] A wife’s virginity prior to marriage was critical, as it guaranteed their child was actually the result of the marital union and not belonging to another man. An illegitimate child would impact the inheritance rights, especially if the child was the firstborn son and given a double portion of property. The charge in this section—if true—was a serious matter that would damage the wife’s reputation within the community, perhaps making her ineligible for future marriage. Earl Radmacher adds,
"The indisputable legitimacy of children was vital to ancient society and inheritance rights. Joseph’s actions when he learned of Mary’s pregnancy can be explained by these laws (Matt 1:18-25). Because of Joseph’s love for Mary, he did not want to make a public accusation. At the same time, he was not prepared to marry a woman who he thought had been immoral."[2]
     Because such a charge might come against a newlywed wife, the recourse for defense was, “then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate” (Deut 22:15). It should be remembered that engagement was equal to marriage in ancient Israel. God’s ideal for the family was to have a strong sense of corporate identity, responsibility, and protection. Because marriages were commonly arranged by the parents, it fell to the parents to defend their daughter’s reputation by producing evidence of her virginity. The charge by the husband was not only an attack on the integrity of his new wife, but also on the parents who presented her as a virgin. The parents would present evidence of her virginity to the elders at the city gate, which was where court was held and legal matters handled.
     Moses continued, saying, “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, ‘I did not find your daughter a virgin.’ But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city” (Deut 22:16-17). After the wedding night, it was common that the parents would collect the bed sheets, as they would provide evidence of the daughter’s virginity, in case a legal charge of infidelity was ever brought against her. And the girl’s father, who was to the protector of the home, was to take the lead in defending her. Victor Matthews writes, “The integrity of the woman’s household was based on her being able to show proof of her virginity. The physical evidence demanded in this case could be either the sheets from the initial consummation (bloodied by the breaking of the hymen) or possibly rags used during the woman’s last menstrual period, showing that she was not pregnant prior to the marriage.”[3] Here was a case where evidence other than eyewitnesses was sufficient to prove innocence.
     If the material evidence was accepted by the city elders, then “the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days” (Deut 22:18-19). The elders would chastise the man, which included a public flogging, and fining him a hundred shekels of silver. In ancient Israel, ten shekels of silver was equal to an annual wage; therefore, his fine would have been 10 years wages. Furthermore, the man was forced to stay married to the girl for the rest of his life. Concerning no divorce, Charles Clough states, “If you look at the marital rules, that doesn’t mean necessarily that she has to live with him; what it means is that he is economically responsible for her for the rest of his life. Not only that, but if she’s pregnant and has a boy, that boy, if it’s a first born, takes the inheritance of the entire family.”[4]
     However, Moses switches the guilt, saying, “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus, you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deut 22:20-21). Here, the guilt falls upon the girl because of her marital disloyalty. And because the consequence was capital punishment, one assumes Moses’ previous law applied, in which he said, “no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness” (Num 35:30b). Capital punishment required two or preferably three witnesses (Deut 17:6; 19:15). If the girl was guilty and condemned to death, the assumption was that a thorough investigation was done and at least two or three witnesses were found to testify against her. Furthermore, the girl was to be executed at “the doorway of her father’s house”, which shows that the parents bore some of the blame for their daughter’s sinful behavior, most likely because they knew about her licentiousness and did not seek to dissuade her, or covered it up from the husband. By dealing with this sort of crime, Israel would “purge the evil from among you” (Deut 22:21b).
     Concerning adultery, Moses said, “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus, you shall purge the evil from Israel” (Deut 22:22). In this case, both the man and woman were “found” in the act of adultery, which act was punishable by death in ancient Israel (Lev 20:10). The assumption is that the sexual affair was consensual, since both are sentenced to death. And, since capital punishment was prescribed, the two or three witness policy applied (Deut 17:6; 19:15). As in the previous scenarios, having sex with another man’s wife was not only an attack on the institution of marriage, but also on the wife’s household, as it might introduce a child that would add to the family and impact the transmission of property, especially if it brought forth a firstborn son. Daniel Block states, “Since sexual crimes are considered crimes against the fabric of the community and crimes against God, covenantal righteousness demands the purgation of the evil from the midst of Israel, which is achieved by removing the corrupting elements.”[5]
     Addressing adultery again, Moses said, “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus, you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deut 22:23-24). Here, the engaged girl is regarded as legally married, even though the marriage had not been consummated. Peter Craigie comments:
"Although rape could take place in the city, the case in question is not an example of rape, for if the woman had cried out for help, help would have come. Because there was no evidence that the woman had called for help, it could be assumed that she had consented to the advances of the man. Thus, as in the case of adultery, both parties were to be executed by stoning."[6]
     The consequence for both persons was death by stoning. Again, because the consequence was death, the assumption of the two or three witness policy would apply (Deut 17:6; 19:15). And the severity of punishment shows that adultery injured the community as much as the innocent spouse. Individual choices impact the community as a whole, either for righteousness or sin, for blessing or cursing (cf. Jonah 1:12).
     In contrast to the previous law, Moses said, “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die” (Deut 22:25). Here, the man alone is to be put to death for raping an engaged girl. Moses further states, “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her” (Deut 22:26-27). In this scenario, the girl is presumed innocent because of the remote location, because if she cried out, there would be no one to hear her. Though we are not given any details, we assume either the man and girl were discovered shortly after the crime was committed, or the girl accused the man, and then some process of investigation was instigated whereby the man’s guilt was determined. The man who sexually assaulted the engaged girl was to be put to death, as his crime of rape was classified as similar to murder (Deut 22:26).
     Moving to another scenario, Moses said, “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days” (Deut 22:28-29). In this situation the girl who is sexually assaulted is a virgin and not married. The fifty shekels of silver may have been the common price which a man paid to the parents of his bride-to-be (Ex 22:16-17). This would have been five years wages. Furthermore, the man who committed the crime could not divorce her all his days. As stated previously, this did not mean the girl had to live with the man, but that he was financially responsible for her all his life, which would have included caring for a child if the girl became pregnant as a result. And if the child was his first-born son, the son would, by law, receive the double portion inheritance due him.
     Lastly, Moses said, “A man shall not take his father’s wife so that he will not uncover his father’s skirt” (Deut 22:30). Here was a case prohibiting incest, in which a son slept with his father’s wife, presumably the son’s stepmother. We know Reuben committed this sin when he had sexual relations with “Bilhah his father’s concubine” (Gen 35:22). We know that Absalom also committed this sin when he slept with David’s concubines (2 Sam 16:22). And, there was a Christian at the church at Corinth who did the same (1 Cor 5:1).
An Exception to the Rule Based on Humility and Grace
     In Second Samuel, we read about a situation in which King David had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba and participated in the murder of her husband, Uriah, in order to cover it up (2 Sam 11:1-17). In the sexual affair, both David and Bathsheba consented, as David sent, and Bathsheba went (2 Sam 11:4). Afterwards, we’re told Bathsheba became pregnant (2 Sam 11:5), and when David could not hide his sin (2 Sam 11:6-26), he had her husband, Uriah, killed. The divine estimation of the situation was, “the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Sam 11:27). According to Mosaic Law, both David and Bathsheba should have been executed for their crime (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). However, when confronted by Nathan the prophet (2 Sam 12:1-12), David admitted his sin and said, “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Sam 12:13a; read Psalm 51 for the longer version of David’s confession). And upon his confession, the prophet Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Sam 12:13b). Biblically, we know “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet 5:5). The assumption is that because David humbled himself before the Lord, God gave him a reduced sentence. In one of his psalms, David wrote:
"The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness. 9 He will not always strive with us, nor will He keep His anger forever. 10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. 11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. 12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us. 13 Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him." (Psa 103:8-13)
     Here we see God’s grace and government simultaneously at work; for though David was forgiven and restored to fellowship with God and permitted to serve as Israel’s king, there were still consequences for his actions and the Lord dispensed judgment upon David, which also hurt other family members and lasted for years (2 Sam 12:14-18). Actions have consequences. When God’s children live righteously, there is blessing that touches other persons. However, when God’s children live sinfully, the Lord’s discipline effects the errant child and can spill into the lives of those nearby (see Jonah 1:12). May we all understand the importance of our choices and the impact it has on the lives of others, and may we choose a life of righteousness that God’s blessings might abound.
 
[1] “2272 שָׂנֵא,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 880.
[2] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 257.
[3] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 22:13–21.
[4] Charles Clough, Lecture on Deuteronomy 22; 48th lesson, 43rd minute. https://www.bibleframeworkapplied.org/other-lessons/deuteronomy/message/lesson-48-purity-of-created-distinctions-sexual-identity
[5] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 525.
[6] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 294–295.

Jeremiah 33:1-26 - God’s Promises of a Future for Israel and a Righteous Messiah

Jeremiah 33:1-26 consists of two speeches: 1) God’s promise to restore Israel and Judah as a single nation (Jer 33:1-13), and 2) God’s promise to send Messiah to rule over His people at a future time (Jer 33:14-26). Full set of study notes here: https://thinkingonscripture.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/jeremiah-331-26.pdf 

Deuteronomy 22:1-12 - Sundry Laws

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In the current section, Moses give directives concerning: 1) responsible care for a neighbor’s lost property (Deut 22:1-3), 2) helping a neighbor (Deut 22:4), 3) prohibition against transvestism (Deut 22:5), 4) conservation of birds as a food source (Deut 22:6-7), 5) maintaining structurally safe homes (Deut 22:8), 6) symbolic separation of seeds, animals, and fabrics (Deut 22:9-11), and 7) wearing clothing that reminds Israel of their holy relationship with God (Deut 22:12). Moses begins these sundry laws, saying:
"You shall not see your countryman’s ox or his sheep straying away, and pay no attention to them [עָלַם alam – to conceal or hide oneself]; you shall certainly bring them back to your countryman. 2 If your countryman is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain with you until your countryman looks for it; then you shall restore it to him. 3 Thus you shall do with his donkey, and you shall do the same with his garment, and you shall do likewise with anything lost by your countryman, which he has lost and you have found. You are not allowed to neglect them [עָלַם alam – to conceal or hide oneself]." (Deut 22:1-3)
     Of the 613 commands in the Mosaic Laws, 365 were negative and 248 were positive. The commands related largely to Israel’s relationship with God and others. Previously, Moses commanded that an Israelite return the lost animal of his enemy (Ex 23:4). The enemy in Exodus 23:4 likely refers to a fellow Israelite who was a legal adversary. In Deuteronomy 22:1-3, the application pertained to caring for anything lost that belonged to a fellow Israelite (ox, sheep, donkey, garment, etc.), until it could be restored. If an Israelite found his neighbor’s property, whatever it might be, he was not permitted to “pay no attention to them”, or “not allowed to neglect them”, which phrases translates the Hebrew עָלַם alam, and means to conceal or hide oneself. Other translations read, “You must not ignore it” CSB), and “you must not refuse to get involved” (NET). That is, an Israelite was not free to hide himself from his communal responsibility of caring for his neighbor’s property. Earl Radmacher states, “Every individual in the community bore a responsibility to uphold justice within that community (compare Gal 6:2).”[1]
     Moses provides another example of corporate responsibility, saying, “You shall not see your countryman’s donkey or his ox fallen down on the way, and pay no attention to them; you shall certainly help him to raise them up” (Deut 22:4). Whereas the previous command related to returning lost property to its rightful owner, this directive pertained to helping an animal that had fallen and could not get up. We’re not told why the animal fell, although it could have been because its owner had placed too heavy a load on it. Whatever the reason, the owner could not help the animal by his own efforts and needed assistance to help raise it to its feet. In Exodus 23:5, Moses had set forth similar instruction that pertained to an enemy Israelite, saying, “If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely release it with him” (Ex 23:5). Again, this was likely a fellow Israelite who was a legal adversary. Whatever the relationship with a fellow Israelite (friend or foe), everyone bore a corporate responsibility to help the helpless, even animals.
     In the next command, Moses said, “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deut 22:5). God created two genders, male and female (Gen 1:27), and these should be distinguishable in the sight of others. Whatever clothing a man or woman wears, it should not confuse their gender identity. In ancient Israel, men wore white robes, whereas women wore colored garments (Fruchtenbaum). Whatever the cultural practice—pants, dresses, tights, etc.—each person’s gender should be identifiable when observed by others. In Canaanite culture, transvestism was associated with homosexuality as well as certain cult practices pertaining to idol worship. Both idolatry (Deut 5:7-9) and homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13) were regarded as an abomination to the Lord. Earl Radmacher adds, “Cross-dressing was forbidden by God in ancient Israel. In the ancient Middle East, dressing in the clothing of the opposite sex was a magical practice intended to bring harm to people. For example, a transvestite male would predict that the soldiers of another army would be as weak as females.”[2]
     In the next command, Moses states, “If you happen to come upon a bird’s nest along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; 7 you shall certainly let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, in order that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days” (Deut 22:6-7). Here was an example of responsible ecological conservation. The rationale was that if an Israelite found a bird’s nest and ate the mother along with her eggs or young, he would have destroyed an ongoing viable food source. Originally, God created Adam and Eve as theocratic administrators to “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen 1:26). After the Noahic flood, God permitted the eating of animals, saying, “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant” (Gen 9:3). Responsible dominion means caring for the environment and animals and not driving them to extinction. This not only protects the animals, but also preserves the lives of people, as it secures future food sources. The benefit of compliance would help God’s people, “in order that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days” (Deut 22:7b). Victor Matthews states, “One might compare this with the prohibition against cutting down fruit trees in Deuteronomy 20:19–20. In both instances, future sources of food are preserved while an alternative is suggested for immediate needs.”[3] And Daniel Block adds:
"While people who discover the nest of a wild bird have several options, Moses offers simple counsel: Israelites may take the eggs/fledglings, but they must spare the mother. Reining in the temptation to cruelty, verse 7 reiterates that if a mother bird is found with its young, the mother is not to be taken. The wisdom of this counsel is obvious: Taking the mother but sparing the young would have meant the death of all, for unhatched eggs and fledgling birds depend on the mother. Israelites are not to kill for killing’s sake, nor to exploit natural resources without concern for the survival of the species."[4]
     Next, Moses states, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it” (Deut 22:8). Since Moses’ audience had been living in tents in the wilderness for the previous 40 years, such property concerns would have been new to them. Rooftops in ancient Israel were flat and places where people gathered for fellowship (1 Sam 9:25; 2 Sam 11:2), as well as places to sleep on hot summer nights, as they would benefit from cooler winds that came from the Mediterranean Sea to the west. Daniel Block states:
"Houses were often two-story constructions, with the lower floor housing animals and storing food stuffs, and the upper floor serving as the living quarters. Cooled by the breezes, flat roofs provided a third living space that residents could use for a variety of purposes. Without a barrier around the perimeter, people could step off the roof and fall to their deaths. The final clause of verse 8 holds the head of the household responsible for the life of anyone whose death is the result of negligence."[5]
     Israelites were to assume reasonable responsibility for those who visited their home, making sure their home environment was safe. Again, we see a sense of corporate responsibility within the Israelite community as it pertains to structurally safe homes.
     The next three laws prohibit mixing certain things together; namely, seeds in a field (Deut 22:9), animals for labor (Deut 22:10), and types of fabric for everyday use (Deut 22:11).
     In the first prohibition, Moses said, “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, or all the produce of the seed which you have sown and the increase of the vineyard will become defiled” (Deut 22:9). The production of crops was not only intended for personal consumption, but for sacred use at the tabernacle/temple. Such a mixed crop was viewed by the Lord as defiled, which connotes its being ceremonially unfit for use by the priests. Warren Wiersbe states, “Keeping the various seeds separated when sowing the fields was also recognition of the principle of separation. It’s possible that the pagan nations mingled their seed as a part of their fertility rites in connection with their gods.”[6]
     In the second example of keeping things separate, Moses said, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deut 22:10). Naturally, an ox and a donkey had different strengths, and it would be cruel for the lesser animal to be paired with a stronger animal and be required to pull a load greater than its ability. Daniel Block adds, “This practice creates a fundamentally incongruous image: the animals’ anatomies require different types of harness and a drastically modified yoke to link the two; their unequal strength and stamina could cause the more vigorous to exhaust the weaker.”[7]
     Moses’ third prohibition against mixing things was, “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together” (Deut 22:11). The meaning of this taboo is not given. Some scholars suggest this taboo was intended to separate the average Israelite from the Levitical priests, who were permitted to wear mixed fabrics. Daniel Block states, “Moses does not justify this taboo, even though it contradicts the prescriptions for the fabric of the tabernacle and the high priest’s garments. While forbidden for laypersons, wearing garments of mixed fabrics was reserved for those who served in Yahweh’s presence.”[8]
     The last directive in this pericope states, “You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself” (Deut 22:12). This positive command reflects the command in Numbers 15:38-40 in which Moses intended the tassels to serve as a mnemonic device to help them remain conscious of their relationship with God and His commands.
     For Israelites, there was a triangular relationship between God, them, and the world around them. Their relationship with God impacted their personal choices (i.e., clothing), as well as their relationship with others (both friends and enemies), the earth (caring for their environment), and even animals, both domestic and wild. If their relationship with God was prioritized, it would result in the natural function and care of others as well as their environment. In this way, God’s directives resulted in righteousness as it touched all aspects of life (Deut 16:20).
Present Application
     As Christians, we are saved by God’s grace when we trust in Christ as our Savior (John 3:16; Rom 4:1-5; 1 Cor 15:3-4; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; Tit 3:5). Additionally, God selected us to “be holy and blameless before Him” (Eph 1:4). Elsewhere, Paul wrote to Christians, saying, “I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:1-2a). And the apostle Peter wrote, “like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, ‘you shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Pet 1:15-16).
     But how are we—as born-again Christians—made holy in conduct? Living distinguished from the world occurs as we learn to walk with God and advance to spiritual maturity. The following steps are helpful. First, we must be in submission to God. Scripture tells us to “Submit to God” (Jam 4:7), and “present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Rom 12:1). Being in submission to God means we desire the Lord’s will above all else. When this happens, God’s Word opens up to us (John 7:17). Second, we must replace a lifetime of human viewpoint thinking with God’s Word. Paul said, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2). Other Scriptures support this idea (Psa 1:2-3; 2 Tim 2:15; 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18). As Christians, we cannot live what we do not know, and learning God’s Word necessarily precedes living His will. A biblical worldview enables us to see our spiritual identity as children of God (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:1-5; Eph 1:3-6; 1 Pet 2:9-10), as saints (Acts 9:13; Rom 1:7; 8:27; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:1-2), and ambassadors of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:20) who have meaningful and eternal purposes in God. More so, biblically trained minds empower us to properly interpret the world in order to see it from the divine perspective. Cultural conformity is effectively resisted by believers who are “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). This means Scripture saturates our minds (Prov 3:5-6; Isa 26:3; Col 3:1), and we are not allowing our thoughts to be bogged down with the cares of this world (Matt 6:25-34). Mental discipline is necessary, for our psychological stability is often predicated on the biblical content and continuity of our thinking. Third, we must learn to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18), and to walk in dependence on the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16, 25). Being filled with the Holy Spirit means being controlled by Him. It means we follow where He guides, and His guidance is always according to Scripture. Being filled with the Spirit does not mean we have more of the Spirit, but that Spirit has more of us, as we submit to His leading. It means the Spirit is fulfilling in us all He desires. Fourth, we must learn to live by faith in God and His Word. Learning God’s Word becomes effective when mixed with our faith as we apply it to all aspects of our lives. Our faith is effective when God’s Word is more real than our experiences, feelings, or circumstances. The writer to the Hebrews states, “But my righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him” (Heb 10:38), for “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb 11:6). Fifth, we must accept God’s trials that help us grow. God uses trials to strengthen our faith and develop us spiritually. Often, we don’t like hardship, but we must learn to accept it as necessary. For the Lord uses it to burn away the dross of our weak character and to refine those golden qualities consistent with His character. The growing believer learns to praise God for the trials, knowing He uses them to advance us spiritually (Psa 119:71; Rom 5:3-5; 2 Cor 12:7-10; Heb 12:11; Jam 1:2-4; 1 Pet 4:12-13). Sixth, we must restore fellowship with God through confession of personal sin. As Christians, when we sin, we break fellowship with God and grieve and/or quench the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30; 1 Th 5:19). Fellowship is restored when we simply confess our sin to God and trust that He forgives us as He promises (1 John 1:5-9). Seventh, we must maintain fellowship with other believers. Scripture teaches, “let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Heb 10:24-25). Spiritual growth does not happen in isolation, as God expects us to exercise our spiritual gifts for the benefit of others (Acts 2:42; Rom 12:10-13; 14:19; Eph 4:32; Phil 2:3-4; 1 Th 5:11-15). Eighth, we must serve others. We are part of the body of Christ and God calls us to love and serve each other. Peter states, “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet 4:10). Ninth, pray to God. Prayer is essential to spiritual growth as we need to have upward communication with God to express ourselves to Him. Prayer is the means by which we make requests to God, believing He has certain answers ready for us, and that we just need to ask (Jam 4:2). Scripture directs us to “pray without ceasing” (1 Th 5:17), and “pray at all times in the Spirit” (Eph 6:18; cf. Jude 1:20). To pray in the Spirit means we pray in the power of the Holy Spirit as He directs and energizes our prayer life. Tenth, worship and give thanks to the Lord. The writer to the Hebrews stated, “let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name” (Heb 13:15). And Paul wrote to the Christians at Thessalonica, saying, “in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus” (1 Th 5:18). To give thanks (εὐχαριστέω eucharisteo) is to have a daily attitude of gratitude toward God for His goodness and mercy toward us. Part of this attitude comes from knowing God is working all things “together for good” (Rom 8:28), because “God is for us” (Rom 8:31). Lastly, we must be wise stewards of the time and opportunities God provides us to advance spiritually. Paul writes, “Be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil” (Eph 5:15-16). The believer does not reach spiritual maturity overnight, and since we have only a measure of time allotted to us by God (Psa 139:16), we must make sure our days are not wasted on meaningless pursuits, but on learning God’s Word and living His will. (Eph 5:15-17; cf. Heb 5:12; 1 Pet 1:17; 4:1-2).
 
 
[1] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 256.
[2] Ibid., 256–257.
[3] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 22:6–7.
[4] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 513.
[5] Ibid., 514.
[6] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 154.
[7] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 515.
[8] Ibid., 515.

Making a Biblical Marriage Free Audio Book

This free audio book is the companion to Making a Biblical Marriage. Steven Cook recorded the introduction, but Cherie Backs recorded the main portion of the book. 
 

Deuteronomy 21:10-23 - War, War Brides, Disobedient Sons, and Dead Criminals

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In the previous section, Moses set forth a law concerning an unsolved murder, and addressed the responsibilities God placed on the leaders of a nearby city to pronounce their innocence before the Lord (Deut 21:1-9). In the current section, Moses addresses: 1) the just treatment of wives taken in war (Deut 21:10-14), 2) the just treatment of a firstborn son from an unloved wife (Deut 21:15-17), 3) the just treatment of a rebellious son (Deut 21:18-21), and 4) the just treatment of the body of an executed criminal (Deut 21:22-23).
     Moses opens this section, saying, “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive…” (Deut 21:10). The Hebrew conjunction כִּי ki, translated when, assumes the reality of future warfare for God’s people. As the Lord’s people engaged the enemy, they were to know that it was their God who was giving them victory. In this passage, Israel’s enemies refer to adversaries outside the land of Canaan (Deut 20:15), as there was the possibility of some taken as captives. This was contrary to the command to kill everyone in Canaan and to leave no one alive (Deut 7:1-3; 20:16-18).
     Moses anticipated a situation in which an Israelite warrior would “see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife” (Deut 21:11). Here, the word desire translates the Hebrew verb חָשַׁק chashaq, which means “to be very attached to, to love somebody.”[1] This speaks of the natural desire that a man has for a woman in which he sees her as physically attractive and perhaps as a companion for marriage. When used of people, this love is predicated on outward appearance and behavior, which is always subject to change. Interestingly, the same Hebrew word is used of Yahweh toward Israel (Deut 10:15). However, when used of God, it refers to a love that is based on His volition and integrity and not the beauty or worth of the object, as Moses had previously made clear (Deut 7:7).
     If the soldier decided to pursue the woman as his wife and bring her into his home, Moses instructed, “then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife” (Deut 21:12-13). Shaving the head, trimming nails, and removing familiar clothing may picture the putting away of her old life before the war. Hard changes to physical appearance—including hair fashion and clothing—can help with the psychological transition from one culture to another, assuming the person is willing to adapt. These actions also allow the woman to express her grief during the time of transition and is permitted to mourn her parents a full month. Here, non-Israelite women were allowed to honor their mother and father as Israel’s law demanded of His own people (Deut 5:16). Daniel Block writes, “When her hair and nails grow and she puts on new clothes, she emerges as a new person, with a new identity and new status; she hereby declares nonverbally what Ruth declared verbally to Naomi (Ruth 1:16). The actions also remind her new husband that he is not to treat her as an alien or a slave.”[2] This transition would have helped the woman recover psychologically from the natural shocks of war, loss of family, and adaptation to a new culture. Eugene Merrill adds, “This presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively.”[3]
     However, if the marriage was not working out, then Moses gave legal provision for the war bride to be released from the marriage. Moses said, “It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her” (Deut 21:14). Being not pleased with her is vague and could refer either to the man’s personal desires changing, or perhaps to the possibility that the woman refused to adopt Yahweh as her God, therefore making the marriage impossible to maintain. Whatever the reason of displeasure, the man was to set her free from the relationship and not treat her as a slave, which would add to her humiliation. This verse also shows that Israelites could marry foreign women (although Canaanite women were excluded; Deut 7:1-4). Ruth is the ideal example of a foreign woman adopting Yahweh as her God and walking in the ways of the Lord (Ruth 1:16; 4:13). Unlike Israel, pagan cultures did not afford their female captors such privileges. Moses then transitions to address the Israelite man who has two wives—perhaps as a follow-up to the previous discussion—and sets forth a law concerning the rights of the firstborn. Moses said:
"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, 16 then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. 17 But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn." (Deut 21:15-17)
     Whatever the husband’s personal attitude toward his wives, whether he loved one more than the other, he was restricted from denying his firstborn son the legal right to a double-portion of the inheritance. Being the firstborn son and receiving the double-portion obligated him—with the appropriate resources—to care for his parents in their old age and to serve as the head of the family. What follows could address the possibility that a son—whether firstborn or not—proved to be rebellious and disobedient to his parents, failing to follow in the path of righteousness. Moses said:
"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. 20 They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear." (Deut 21:18-21)
     Whereas the previous directive protected a firstborn son from a capricious father, this command protected the father and mother—and society at large—from a rebellious son who was a troublemaker. Here, the son is regarded as being between that of a child and a fully developed adult. Eugene Merrill comments:
"These children certainly were not minors as their behavior (v. 20) and punishment (v. 21) made clear, but they also could not have been fully mature and independent adults who were out from direct parental supervision and heads of their own households. Rather, they were adolescents, dependents who were under the care of their fathers and mothers but fully responsible for their actions and resulting consequences."[4]
     The phrase a glutton and a drunkard are merely a few of the many characteristics of the son who was largely stubborn and rebellious. Peter Craigie states, “The latter words do not specify the crime, but indicate, by way of example, the kind of life that has resulted from disobedience to parental authority.”[5]
     Biblically, parents were to train their children in authority orientation so they would be able to function properly in society. The child who would not submit to his parent’s authority was seen as a threat to the welfare of the community, as he would also not submit to governmental authority and eventually become part of the criminal element that would lead to societal harm. In every home, parental influence diminishes over time, as the child’s personality becomes settled. At a certain point—and it’s different for each person—the child must bear the consequences of his own actions before God and others. If the child reaches a place of maximum recalcitrance, the parents could bring their son to the elders of the community, who would execute him by stoning him to death, and in this way, would remove the evil person from their midst. Executing the son was the responsibility of the leaders within the city and not the parents, and this only after a legal case had been made. That both parents were to do this shows equal responsibility in the home for raising and training the child. Daniel Block writes:
"The description suggests the parents have done all they could to raise their son properly, but he is incorrigible and will not listen to either father or mother. The prescription for this son seems simple. The parents are to seize him, take him to the assembly of the elders in the town where they reside, present their case orally, and leave him with the men of the town, who will stone him to death (vv. 19–21a)."[6]
     This consequence is not merely because the child is disobedient in the home. Rather, he has grown to adulthood and poses a corrupting threat to the wellbeing of the community at large, and therefore cannot be tolerated, lest he influence other sons to be rebellious against the Lord. Most children possess good and bad qualities during their developmental years and are usually not completely sold to evil at a young age. The scenario in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 seems to picture an extreme situation, such that a son was disobedient all the time, perhaps over years, and had developed such sinful qualities that he was beyond reform and must be put to death, lest he become a cause for evil in the community, which community was called by God to be holy. Though this law was given, we have no biblical record of a parent implementing it.
     Having discussed the execution of a son, Moses then addressed the larger issue of what to do with the body of a person who had been put to death. Moses said, “If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deut 21:22-23). This verse addressed the reality that some crimes warranted the death penalty. That the body of the dead person was hung on a tree for others to see perhaps served as a phycological deterrent to would-be-criminals. Such a criminal was viewed by the community as being “accursed by God” and worthy of his crime. However, even though on display, the body of the executed person was not to be left overnight, but buried the same day. Failure to follow this policy would result in the elders of the city being guilty of defiling the land itself. Joshua followed this command when he executed the king of Ai (Josh 8:29), as well the executed pagan kings of southern Canaan (Josh 10:26-27). The apostle Paul referenced Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13 when referring to the death of Jesus. Jesus was cursed in that He was made to bear our sin on the cross (1 Pet 2:24; cf., John 19:31), not that the cross itself made Him cursed.
     Interestingly, God Himself struggled to carry out His judgment upon the nation of Israel, whom He regarded as His son (Ex 4:22-23; Hos 11:1). The historical record of Israel reflected a longstanding rebellion against God as they repeatedly rejected His authority and committed horrible sins over centuries. God, on His part, repeatedly displayed love, grace, patience, and goodness toward His people, constantly providing clear directives into righteous living (Jer 25:4-11). The more He sought to lead them into righteousness, the more they rebelled against Him and pursued wickedness (Hos 11:2-4). Eventually, He judged them for their sin by handing them over to others for discipline (Hos 11:5-7). Still, the heart of God was torn, as it wounded Him deeply to consider His judgment, and in the end, though they were severally disciplined, they were not destroyed (Hos 11:8-9). Good and righteous parents will understand the heart of God when dealing with their own rebellious children.
Below are some thoughts about women, polygamy, parenting and children:
     Unlike ancient cultures that regarded women as lesser beings who could be mistreated or abused by men, the book of Deuteronomy offers no such endorsement. Rather, God established legal rights for widows (Deut 10:17-18), for daughters and female servants to have an equal place of worship at the tabernacle/temple (Deut 12:12), for female slaves—like their male counterparts—to be set free after six years of service (Deut 15:12), and for a newlywed wife to enjoy the company of her husband before he was eligible for military service (Deut 20:7). Likewise, the wife shared equal responsibility for raising the children to know and walk with God (Prov 6:20-23), and the children were to honor their father and mother. Even war brides had legal rights that protected them (Deut 21:11-14). And the excellent wife who honors God, lives wisely, and serves others, is praised for her godly virtues (Prov 31:10-31).
     Concerning marriage, monogamy was God’s ideal (Gen 2:24-25; Matt 19:4-6). However, polygamy was permitted (though not promoted), except for the king, who held the highest office in the land (Deut 17:17). In polygamous relationships, wives were to receive equal treatment in the home (Ex 21:10-11). Biblically, we know Abraham took Hagar to be his wife, even though he was married to Sarah (Gen 16:3). Jacob had four wives: Leah (Gen 29:23-25), Rachel (Gen 29:28), Zilpah (Leah’s maid; Gen 30:9) and Bilhah (Rachel’s maid; Gen 30:1-4). King David had eight wives that we know by name: Michal (1 Sam 18:27), Abigail (1 Sam 25:39-42), Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43), Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24), Maacah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah (2 Sam 3:2-5), and other wives and concubines that are unnamed (2 Sam 5:13). As far as I can tell, David married only women within the Israelite community and he cared for his wives. In one biblical account, two of David’s wives, Abigail and Ahinoam, had been taken captive (1 Sam 30:5), and David prayed to God concerning the matter. God provided David victory so that he could reclaim his two wives as well as many possessions (1 Sam 30:6-18). King Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away” (1 Ki 11:3). God permitted Solomon to sin in this area of his life, and it ultimately ruined his walk with the Lord. Solomon eventually worshipped idols (1 Ki. 11:4-10), and this brought God’s anger. God said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant” (1 Ki 11:11). God punished Solomon for his sin, but He punished him as a son and not an unbeliever. In spite of David and Solomon’s sin, God used them both to accomplish great things. Eventually, Jesus, the promised Messiah, was born in their family line (Matt 1:6-7, 17).
     God created Adam and Eve with the ability and mandate to procreate and fill the earth (Gen 1:26-28). Once a mother and father have children, God expects both parents to raise their children to know the Lord and to walk with Him (Deut 6:7-8). Ideally, children are “a gift of the LORD” (Psa 127:3a), and, “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth” (Psa 127:4). However, godly parents and a godly home are no guarantee children will accept what is provided, as they may turn away from the Lord. Parents are responsible for their godly output, but not the outcome of results. Parents hope for good children, and to this end they teach God’s Word, model godliness, and pray fervently. However, the reality is that any parent, even those who pursue righteousness, may have children who fail to follow the Lord and commit themselves to a sinful lifestyle. Such children have disowned their parents and the Lord. This was the case with Eli, whose sons “were worthless men; they did not know the LORD” (1 Sam 2:12). And Eli’s sons refused their father’s wise and loving correction (1 Sam 2:22-25a), and “would not listen to the voice of their father” (1 Sam 2:25b). Because Eli’s sons had continually sinned against the Lord and others, they’d placed themselves under God’s judgment, and the result was, “the LORD desired to put them to death” (1 Sam 2:25); which He did (1 Sam 2:34; 3:13; 4:10-11). Similarly, Samuel had two sons who “did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice” (1 Sam 8:3). Such rebellious children are a grief to their parents (Prov 10:1; 15:20; 17:25), not honoring their father and mother (Deut 5:16), who lovingly seek to correct them into the path of righteousness. Children who dishonor their parents also dishonor God, who delegated authority and responsibility to them for the wise upbringing of their children. It’s interesting that a child as young as eight could be morally accountable before God, as was Jehoiachin, who “was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Ch 36:9).
     Godly parents will instruct their children in the ways of the Lord, and wise children will listen and apply what they’ve learned, subsequently living a beautiful righteous life (Prov 6:20-23). In the New Testament, Paul recognized that Timothy’s life was directly influenced by the instruction provided to him in childhood by his grandmother and mother. Paul said of Timothy, “I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well...and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). In another place, Paul linked a child’s obedience to parents as the ground for personal and future blessings, saying, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth” (Eph 6:1-3). The child who made this investment in parental obedience would reap the benefit of a blessed life by God. And in Colossians, Paul wrote, “Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord” (Col 3:20). All children have their sinful proclivities and failings. Hopefully, as they grow into adulthood, they will learn to fear the Lord and walk with Him, producing a beautiful righteous life that honors God and their parents. Until then, parents must stay the course and continue to expose their children to biblical teaching, correcting them when needed, and to model righteousness, patience, grace, all with an attitude of love, being persistent in prayer on behalf of their children (see Job 1:4-5).
 
[1] Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 362.
[2] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 496.
[3] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 291.
[4] Ibid., 293.
[5] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 284.
[6] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 499.

Ruth 4:1-22 Summary

Summary of Ruth 4:1-22:
The Central Idea of the Text is that Boaz fulfilled his promise to Ruth and became her kinsman redeemer.
Boaz fulfilled his promise to Ruth by going to the city gate—where the elders of the city gathered and legal transactions took place—and approaching the kinsman redeemer who was closest to Naomi and Ruth and requesting he purchase Naomi’s land and take Ruth as his wife (Ruth 4:1-5). The nearest kinsman refused the offer claiming it would jeopardize land he currently owned, and then offered Boaz the option of buying the land and marrying Ruth (Ruth 4:6-8).  Boaz accepted the offer and purchased the land and took Ruth as his wife (Ruth 4:9-10).  All the witnesses present approved of Boaz’ actions and pronounced a blessing on him and Ruth (Ruth 4:11-12).  Boaz and Ruth married and she bore a son, named Obed (Ruth 4:13, 17).  The women of the city celebrated the Lord’s love for Naomi and pronounced a blessing on her and her new grandson (Ruth 4:14-15).  Naomi then cared for her grandson (Ruth 4:16-17).  The author—presumably Samuel—provided a genealogical record from Judah’s son, Perez, to David, showing both David’s connection with a Jewish patriarch, as well as the godly grandparents, Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 4:17-22).  God rewarded Boaz and Ruth who demonstrated sacrificial love to the needy.  God provides for His own people.  This includes Naomi who lost faith in God and became bitter, believing the Lord was against her, as well as Ruth and Boaz, who were committed to God, walked in His ways, and demonstrated sacrificial love for the less fortunate. 
Jesus is our redeemer (Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14). All humanity is enslaved to sin (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:1-3), and we are too poor to pay the price for our own spiritual liberation (Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5), but Jesus paid the price for our sin (1 Pet. 1:18-19; Rev. 5:9-10), and now we are free and able to walk with God and do His will (Col. 1:13-14; cf. Rom. 6:17-18; Eph. 5:8-10).

Ruth 4:1-22

Ruth 4:1-22
Dr. Steven R. Cook
 
Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there [to fulfill his promise; see Ruth 3:11-13], and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz spoke was passing by [according to God’s providence], so he said, “Turn aside, friend, sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. 2 He took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down [this was common legal practice]. 3 Then he said to the closest relative [not named], “Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land [in her legal possession] which belonged to our brother [אָח ach – brother, relative] Elimelech. 4 “So I thought to inform you [according to your legal right], saying, ‘Buy it before those who are sitting here [as witnesses], and before the elders of my people [see Lev. 25:23-25]. If you will redeem it [גָּאַל gaal – i.e. to pay the price for freedom], redeem it; but if not, tell me that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am after you.’” And he said, “I will redeem it.” 5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance [see Deut. 25:5-6].” 6 The closest relative said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance [by marrying Ruth and having children]. Redeem it for yourself; you may have my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem it.” 7 Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning the redemption and the exchange of land to confirm any matter: a man removed his sandal and gave it to another [perhaps forfeiting his right to walk on the land]; and this was the manner of attestation in Israel [the writer explains the custom to his generation]. 8 So the closest relative said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself.” And he removed his sandal. 9 Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses today that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. 10 “Moreover, I have acquired Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be cut off from his brothers or from the court of his birth place; you are witnesses today.” 11 All the people who were in the court, and the elders, said, “We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah [Jacob’s wives], both of whom built the house of Israel [along with their two maids; Bilhah and Zilpah; see Gen. 30:1-13]; and may you achieve wealth in Ephrathah and become famous in Bethlehem. 12 “Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah [a surrogate father; see Gen. 38:6-30], through the offspring which the LORD will give you by this young woman.” 13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her. And the LORD enabled her to conceive [God controls the womb; cf. Gen. 16:2; 29:31; 30:2, 22], and she gave birth to a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today [in contrast to Ruth 1:19-21], and may his name become famous in Israel. 15 “May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age [care for you in later years]; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons [high praise for Ruth], has given birth to him.” 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse. 17 The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi!” So they named him Obed [עוֹבֵד Obed – one who serves; perhaps Naomi in old age]. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David [a godly man from a godly line]. 18 Now these are the generations of Perez [the son Judah by Tamar; Gen. 38:27-29]: to Perez was born Hezron, 19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab, 20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon, 21 and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, 22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David [God did bless Boaz and Ruth; see Ruth 4:11-13; ultimately in Jesus, the Messiah; see Matt. 1:3-6, 16].

1 Peter 4:12-19 - Rejoicing in Trials and Suffering

Observations & Applications:
The Central Idea of the Text is that Peter encourages his readers to see their Christian suffering as indicative of their union and walk with Christ. Having the divine perspective was intended to help them frame their experiences in such a way so as to give meaning and purpose to their trials.
Rejoicing in the midst of Christian suffering is an act of the will, not a natural emotional response. By faith, we choose to praise God in the midst of suffering, knowing He’s placing us in the furnace of affliction to burn away the dross of weak character and to develop those golden qualities that reflect His character. We trust that when He turns up the heat, He never takes His hand off the thermostat.
We may experience suffering for a while as we live the Christian life (John 15:20-21; 2 Tim 3:12), but unbelievers will suffer for all eternity, and this because they have rejected Jesus as their Savior (John 3:18, 36).
Should we face death at the hands of haters, we are to entrust ourselves to God as the Keeper of our souls (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59). The Lord who gives us grace to live, will also give us grace to die, if/when that time comes. Remember, we are the Lord’s, and “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His godly ones” (Psa 116:15).
Though we cannot control much of the suffering that comes into our lives, we can control our response to it, as we can look to God and maintain faith in His Word. Jesus was not overcome by the cruelty and suffering He endured, but showed love and forgiveness to His attackers (Luke 23:34). Stephen, who spoke strong words of truth while filled with the Holy Spirit, prayed for those who stoned him to death (Acts 7:60). Paul and Silas demonstrated loving concern for the jailer who kept them in chains, sharing the gospel with him when given the opportunity (Acts 16:22-31). Our lives may be vulnerable to the unjust pain and suffering caused by others, but we must look beyond the suffering and be willing to love even our attackers for the sake of Christ in the hope that they may come to know the gospel and be
As Christians, we live in a fallen world that plays by unfair and unethical rules. Lies, dishonesty, deception, and propaganda are some of the ways of the world. But we must never be marked by such things. Rather, we should speak the truth in love, pursue honesty, and always stand on the ground of God’s Word. It is on the ground of Scripture that we maintain our walk with the Lord and find strength for the battles of life. If we abandon Scripture and play by the rules of the world, then it’s an automatic defeat for us. But living by God’s rules can lead to unjust persecution. This is a real possibility. And if this happens, “it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong” (1 Pet 3:17), and “those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right” (1 Pet 4:19). May we choose to pursue a righteous life before God and others with our eyes open, with complete confidence in our Lord, trusting He will sustain us to the end of our days.
 

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 - And Individual and Corporate Responsibility

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), and how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25). In the previous section, Moses provided instruction concerning war with cities outside Canaan (Deut 20:10-15), and cities inside Canaan (Deut 20:16-20). In this pericope, Moses set forth a law concerning an unsolved murder, and then addressed the responsibilities God placed on the leaders of a nearby city to pronounce their innocence before the Lord (Deut 21:1-9). By following this law, the leaders of the city—elders, judges, and priests—were taking responsibility for what happened in their communities. Even though the city leaders were not personally responsible for the sinful act, it was still their problem as it fell under their jurisdiction, and God expected them to handle it in a specific way that satisfied His holiness, and this because He dwelt among His people.
     Our current section opens with a scenario in which a murdered person is found lying in a field and the murderer is not known. Moses wrote, “If a slain person is found lying in the open country in the land which the LORD your God gives you to possess, and it is not known who has struck him, 2 then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance to the cities which are around the slain one” (Deut 21:1-2). As stated on previous occasions, Moses described the land as that “which the LORD your God gives you to possess” (Deut 21:1a; cf., Deut 5:16; 17:14; 18:9; 19:1, 10, 14; 21:23; 24:4; 25:15, 19; 26:1-2; 27:2-3; 28:8). God owned the land (Lev 25:23), and He was granting it to His people as He’d promised to Abraham (Gen 12:7; 15:18), Isaac (Gen 26:3), and Jacob (Gen 28:13), but with the condition that they obey Him for blessing (Deut 28:1-14).
     When the murderer could not be found, God instructed the elders and judges to investigate the matter and to “go out and measure the distance to the cities which are around the slain one” (Deut 21:2b). These would not be the judges and elders in the nearby city (Deut 16:18; 19:12), but those who served at the central sanctuary and served as a higher court (Deut 17:8-9). Warren Wiersbe states:
"The “elders and judges” mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:2 are probably the “sanctuary court” mentioned in 17:8–13, and this would include the priests (21:5). This was the highest tribunal in the land and murder was a heinous crime. Furthermore, nobody had yet measured to see which city was nearest, so the elders and judges couldn’t have come from that city. Once the nearest city had been determined, the elders of that city participated in the assigned ritual. We assume that the elders and judges investigated the case thoroughly before they took the steps outlined in these verses."[1]
     God owned the land the Israelites would possess (Lev 25:23), and it was the place where He dwelt among His people. The Lord had said, “You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD am dwelling in the midst of the sons of Israel” (Num 35:34). The land itself was to be treated as holy, as God Himself resided in it, among His people. When innocent people were murdered, God declared that “blood pollutes the land” (Num 35:33a). This was true when Cain killed his brother Abel, and God said to Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground” (Gen 4:10). Concerning murder, the Lord also said, “no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it” (Num 35:33). That is, there was no atonement for the murderer that would acquit him of the punishment for his crime. The murderer was to bear the punishment for his crime, and this by the local government (Gen 9:5-6). However, in the current situation, the murderer could not be found to pay for his crime, yet God’s holiness needed to be addressed. Some method of justice needed to be followed in order to remove the corporate guilt of the community.
     Though the murdered person was not the fault of anyone living in the nearby city, it was still their problem, and God expected them to deal with it in a righteous manner. Corporate responsibility was common to ancient cultures. For example, in the ancient law Code of Hammurabi, if a person was murdered, and the murderer could not be found, then “the city and governor shall pay one mina [500 grams] of silver to his people.”[2] This payment was given to the family of the victim, and this by the governor of the city. Thomas Constable states, “Cities were responsible for murders committed within their jurisdictions. This indicates that there is corporate guilt in God’s government. The ritual prescribed removed the pollution caused by bloodshed.”[3] Earl Kalland adds, “When the perpetrator of the crime cannot be detected, some method of removal of the guilt that then falls on the land and people must be secured…The procedure given in this section of Deuteronomy provides the means for satisfying the Lord’s justice by the removal of corporate guilt.”[4]
     The people of the city were to understand that all that happened in their community had an impact on God Himself. The city nearest the slain person would be required to take responsibility and follow the required actions to remove the guilt of their community. Specifically, it was the elders of the city who were to act, as they represented the community as a whole. Concerning the city elders, Moses said, “It shall be that the city which is nearest to the slain man, that is, the elders of that city, shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been worked and which has not pulled in a yoke; 4 and the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which has not been plowed or sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley” (Deut 21:3-4). The actions included taking a heifer that had never been worked, bring it to a valley with running water, which valley had never been plowed or sown, and there break the animal’s neck. The unworked heifer, the clean running water, and the unplowed valley seem to provide a picture of purity. To be clear, this was not a sacrifice, for the animal was not offered by a priest on an altar. Rather, killing the heifer appears to be a symbolic act of what the officials—and the community—would do to the murderer if he were in their hands. In this way, they demonstrated to all that they were willing to take responsibility for their community and adhere to God’s high standards of justice.
     After the elders of the city performed this act, God then called for the priests, saying, “Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, for the LORD your God has chosen them to serve Him and to bless in the name of the LORD; and every dispute and every assault shall be settled by them” (Deut 21:5). Though the city elders were mainly responsible for adjudicating the matter—for they represented their community—God also required the Levitical priests to be present, as they represented the people to God. Here we see both a horizontal and vertical aspect of righteousness within a community. The function of the priests seems to picture a final absolution of the matter. Furthermore, we see in this situation a shared responsibility between the religious and the judicial.
     After the priests had performed their duty, Moses then states, “All the elders of that city which is nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, and they shall answer and say, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it’” (Deut 21:6-7). Here, the elders of the city who followed this act were then to wash their hands over the dead body of the heifer and pronounce their innocence concerning the murder, that they neither had any part in the heinous act, nor knew who the murderer was. Earl Radmacher states, “The elders of the city bore the responsibility for the murder, even though they were not personally guilty. It was up to them to seek atonement for the murder.”[5] Peter Craigie adds:
"The elders of the city that accepted responsibility for the dead man washed their hands over the broken-necked heifer. The symbolism of the various actions now becomes clear: the crime deserved to be punished, as the broken neck of the heifer indicated, but the hand-washing of the elders showed that, although they accepted responsibility for what had happened, they were nevertheless free from the guilt attached to the crime."[6]
     Then the elders of the city were to say, ‘“Forgive Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O LORD, and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel.’ And the bloodguiltiness shall be forgiven them” (Deut 21:8). Forgiveness followed the action of the elders who followed the Lord’s instructions. The word forgive, which appears twice in this verse, translates the Hebrew verb כָּפַר kaphar, which commonly means “to appease someone…to make amends…to make atonement.”[7] The word is often connected with the atonement that comes when a priest sheds an animal’s blood on the altar (Lev 17:11). Here, however, the word connotes an appeasement for justice. Though the elders of the city were innocent, they accepted responsibility for the horrendous crime committed nearest to their community, and sought to balance the scales of justice by means of killing a heifer (as though he were the murderer), washing their hands (a picture of innocence), and by prayer to God (who is the offended Person). Their request to God was, “Forgive Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O LORD” (Deut 21:8a). The language recalled God’s redemptive work for all Israel, when He redeemed His people from Egypt and called them out to be a special people who represented Him to others. Here was a corporate mindset in which the elders of the community took responsibility for those under their care. If they followed these procedures as prescribed, then “the bloodguiltiness shall be forgiven them” (Deut 21:8b).
     The act of the elders did not forgive the murderer of his crime. The blood of the animal was not shed. Furthermore, the act was performed by the elders of the city as the priests watched. The place where the animal was killed was an unworked field, not at an altar. There was no removal of sin for the murderer, only the elimination of any suspected guilt on the part of the elders of the city and the community as a whole.
     Moses closed this pericope, saying, “So you shall remove the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the eyes of the LORD” (Deut 21:9). Murder is bad business, as it stains the community where it occurs. The stain was washed away when the elders and priests of the city accepted responsibility for the matter and followed the Lord’s instruction for cleansing. The elders and priests were not admitting guilt for the crime, for they were innocent. Rather, by following the Lord’s instructions, they were publicly testifying concerning what they would do to the murderer if he were in their hands, and in this way, showed their sense of righteousness agreed with the righteousness of God. In this way, God’s justice was emphasized and upheld.
     In the grand scheme of life, no one gets away with murder. God sees all that happens. ‘“Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?’ declares the LORD’” (Jer 23:24). Though the murderer was not found and judged by human courts, God Himself sees what happens in His world, and He will eventually execute justice in His time and way. For God is “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen 18:25), and He “is a righteous judge, and a God who has indignation every day” (Psa 7:11). No one escapes God’s final judgment.
Present Application
     The Bible teaches both individual and corporate responsibility. God holds each person accountable for what they think, say, and do. However, individual actions can impact the lives of others, both in the moment as well as in the future. For example, when Adam sinned, we all sinned with him (Rom 5:12), and so we are spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-2). Here is corporate guilt. On the other hand, Christ died for sinners (Rom 5:8), and when we trust in Jesus as Savior (John 3:16), we share in His life and righteousness (John 10:28; Phil 3:9). We are all born in Adam at physical birth, and are born again spiritually at the moment of faith in Christ. All humanity is either in Adam or in Christ (1 Cor 15:21-21).
     Individual actions have consequences that impact the lives of others. Abraham’s disobedience in going to Egypt caused problems both for him and Sarah (Gen 12:10-20). David’s disobedience to God in taking an unauthorized census led to the death of 70,000 Israelites (1 Chron 21:1-14). Of course, God disciplined David because of his affair with Bathsheba as well as the murder of her husband, Uriah, and God’s judgment impacted David’s family in the years that followed (2 Sam 12:5-15; cf. 2 Sam 13:1—18:33). Jonah’s disobedience nearly killed his fellow travelers (Jonah 1:12). When Joshua and the army of Israel came against the city of Ai, Israel was soundly defeated and 36 soldiers died (Josh 7:1-5). When Joshua cried out to the Lord and asked why they were defeated (Josh 7:6-10), the Lord said, “Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. And they have even taken some of the things under the ban and have both stolen and deceived. Moreover, they have also put them among their own things” (Josh 7:11). When investigated further (Josh 7:12-19), it was found that one man, Achan (likely with the knowledge of his wife and family), was responsible for the sin. Achan said, “I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel” (Josh 7:20).
     Addressing individual responsibility, God said to Ezekiel, “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die” (Ezek 18:4). And, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezek 18:20). There is suffering that can come from God, and there is suffering that can come from our connection to others. Children may bear the consequences of their parents’ sins, but only as the consequences fall naturally into the lap of the child because of their relationship with their parents. But children do not suffer by the hand of God for the sins their parents commit. John Barry affirms, saying, “Corporate responsibility for sin does not mean succeeding generations are punished for the sins of earlier generations. But, the consequences of the sins of earlier generations may affect later generations.”[8]Walter Kaiser states:
"Ezekiel 18 focuses on the responsibility of the individual for individual guilt. That is one side of the coin. But the Bible also recognizes the reality of the concept of corporate responsibility when it comes to accounting for the effect of some individual sins. The case of Achan in Joshua 7:1–26 is the best example of corporate solidarity, for when Achan sinned, it was said that all Israel had sinned as well. We can understand how one traitor can sell a whole army into major trouble, but we forget how the effects of some sins fall on whole communities, nations or assemblies of persons. In the case in Ezekiel 21, the sword would cut both the righteous and the wicked. That is because in war often both the good and the bad fall. But that was not to say that everyone was individually guilty; no, it was the effect that reached and impacted all."[9]
     Corporately, Israelite communities were organic, with each part touching and impacting the other, such that no one operated in complete isolation, nor in a completely neutral manner. Like two sides of a coin, individual actions impact a community, for better or worse; and the communities’ overall health affects its individual members, either in positive or negative ways. William Raccah states, “Ancient Israelite culture was therefore organic in that each of its parts was interdependent on the others, yet at the same time retained its independence in certain aspects”[10]
     It should be noted that God sometimes allows His innocent people to be swept up in the judgment He brings upon a nation, and this because He plans to use them to serve as His representatives. God permitted Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, and Ezekiel to go into Babylonian captivity, though they had not personally been disobedient to the Lord. God then worked through these men to demonstrate to others how a godly life could be maintained in the midst of a hostile pagan culture. Their trials provided an opportunity for them to grow spiritually and to shine in a dark place.
     Just as God was seen to be in the midst of His people, Israel (Num 35:34), so today, in the church age, Jesus walks in the midst of His churches and evaluates us. In Revelation chapters 2 and 3, the seven churches in Asia Minor were referred to as lampstands, and Jesus is seen “in the middle of the lampstands” (Rev 1:13) as “the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands” (Rev 2:1). Each home-church was under constant review by the Lord Jesus Christ. Out of the seven churches, Jesus gave praise only for two (Smyrna and Philadelphia), both praise and rebuke to four (Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Sardis), and rebuke only for one (Laodicea). And Jesus also gave instructions for each church, to continue what was right, or to correct what was wrong.
     Though individual in nature, each church was part of the “body of Christ” (Eph 4:12; cf. Eph 1:23) which makes up the universal church. Paul wrote, for “you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it” (1 Co 12:27), and, “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Cor 12:26). As Christians, we must think in terms of individual and corporate responsibility, realizing our actions not only impact us, but the lives of others with whom we are in regular contact. It is essential to our spiritual development that we accept responsibility for the things we do as well as the things that come into our lives, even though we may not be the cause. And we can pray for God to remove difficulties, but what He does not remove, He intends for us to deal with, and this for our spiritual development and witness to others.
 
[1] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 139–140.
[2] James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament , 3rd ed. with Supplement. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 167.
[3] Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), Dt 21:1.
[4] Earl S. Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 130.
[5] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 255–256.
[6] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 279–280.
[7] Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 494.
[8] John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Dt 24:16.
[9] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 315.
[10] William Raccah, “Sociology and the Old Testament,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

Choosing a Righteous Life and Righteous Friends

     The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the importance of making good choices, especially as it relates to friends. Solomon wrote, “The righteous choose their friends carefully, but the way of the wicked leads them astray” (Prov 12:26 NIV). Elsewhere, Solomon said, “He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm” (Prov 13:20). The word walk translates the Hebrew verb הָלַךְ halak, which here refers to “a lifestyle, [or] a pattern of conduct.”[1] Our lifestyle is influenced by our friends, who reinforce our path, either for good or harm. The one who chooses wise friends will gain wisdom and be blessed. A wise person—biblically speaking—is one who fears the Lord (Prov 1:7a), whereas, “fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov 1:7b). The wise person receives “instruction in wise behavior, doing what is right, just, and fair” (Prov 1:3), and this according to the standard of God’s Word. Simply stated, the biblically wise person is the one who learns and lives God’s Word on a regular basis. Jesus said, “everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt 7:24).
     There is a danger in choosing foolish friends, for the one who befriends a fool will end a fool, and this with injury. Jesus said, “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (Matt 7:26). Dwight Pentecost states, “A fool is not necessarily one who is marked by a low iq but one who leaves God out of his consciousness…The fool is the man who does not take God into consideration in every area of his life.”[2] Merrill F. Unger adds, “The ‘fool’ is not so much one lacking in mental powers, as one who misuses them; not one who does not reason, but reasons wrongly. In Scripture the ‘fool’ primarily is the person who casts off the fear of God and thinks and acts as if he could safely disregard the eternal principles of God’s righteousness (Psa 14:1; Prov 14:9; Jer 17:11; etc.).”[3]
     As Christians, we choose what paths we follow. Biblically, there is a righteous path and a wicked path, and we must choose the former and avoid the latter. David wrote, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers!” (Psa 1:1; cf. Prov 4:14-17). David generally made good choices throughout his life, and this meant avoiding wicked people. He said, “I do not sit with deceitful men, nor will I go with pretenders. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked” (Psa 26:4-5). Elsewhere he said, “He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; he who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me” (Psa 101:7).
     The psalmist also wrote, “I am a companion of all those who fear You, and of those who keep Your precepts” (Psa 119:63). Allen Ross writes, “The psalmist’s loyalty to the LORD also finds expression in his association with other believers—he is a companion (חָבֵר) to all who fear the LORD, meaning those who keep his commandments. The tie that binds the devout together is the commitment to keep God’s commands.”[4] And Charles Spurgeon adds, “We can hardly hope to be right in the future unless we are right now. The holy man spent his nights with God and his days with God’s people. Those who fear God love those who fear him, and they make small choice in their company so long as the men are truly God-fearing.”[5]
     In the New Testament we learn about the good choices Christians were making as they “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). The words continually devoting themselves translates the Greek word προσκαρτερέω proskartereo, which denotes steadfast commitment and constant devotion. The two things these Christians were constantly devoted to were: 1) the apostle’s teaching, and 2) fellowship with other believers (which included a time of meals and prayer).
     Christians are to live righteously, as this is consistent with our identity in Christ. The apostle Paul implores us “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love” (Eph 4:1-2). Here, our pattern of behavior should mirror our position in Christ. Paul uses similar language when he writes, “You were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light; for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth, trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph 5:6-10). Since we are called to such a high standard of living, it’s very important that we choose our friends carefully, to make sure there is mutual interest in walking with God and living as He directs.
     For this reason, Paul directed the Christians at Corinth not to associate with people who are committed to live by worldly values. Of the unbeliever, Paul wrote, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14). Of the worldly Christian, Paul wrote, “not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?” (1 Cor 5:11-12; cf., Jam 4:4). The general reasoning behind these directives is that “bad associations corrupt good morals” (1 Cor 15:33).
     Close relationships should be developed over time, only as we get to know others, hearing their words and watching their ways, and feeling confident they are among the faithful righteous. Some of the characteristics of a righteous person include:
A commitment to learning God’s Word (Psa 1:1-2; Acts 2:42; Rom 6:17).
Submitting to God’s will (Rom 12:1-2; Jam 1:22).
Confessing sin to God daily (1 John 1:9).
Displaying Christian love (John 13:34; Rom 13:8; 1 Th 4:9; 1 Cor 13:4-8a).
Seeking to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31).
Living by faith in order to please the Lord (Heb 10:38; 11:6; 2 Cor 5:9).
Speaking biblical truth in love (Eph 4:15, 25).
Modeling humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance and peace (Eph 4:1-3).
Being forgiving (Matt 18:21-22).
Doing good (Gal 6:10).
Encouraging other believers to do good (Heb 10:24).
Desiring fellowship with growing believers (Heb 10:25).
Praying for others (1 Th 5:17; 2 Th 1:11; Jam 5:16).
Building others up in the Lord (1 Th 5:11).
Being devoted to fellow believers (Rom 12:10).
 
[1] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 924.
[2] J. Dwight Pentecost, Designed to Be Like Him: Understanding God’s Plan for Fellowship, Conduct, Conflict, and Maturity (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001), 55.
[3] Merrill Frederick Unger, R. K. Harrison, Howard Frederic Vos et al., “Fool”, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988).
[4] Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms (90–150): Commentary, vol. 3, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2016), 519.
[5] C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 111-119, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 257.

Ruth 3:1-18 Summary

Summary of Ruth 3:1-18:
 
The Central Idea of the Text is that Ruth proposes marriage to Boaz, her kinsman-redeemer, and he agrees.
At the end of the harvest season, Naomi suggests to Ruth that she pursue a lasting relationship with Boaz and instructs her about how to approach him (Ruth 3:1-4), and Ruth consents (Ruth 3:5). Ruth went to the threshing-floor where Boaz was working and, after he’d eaten and fallen asleep, she came and lay at his feet and uncovered them (Ruth 3:6-7).  Boaz woke in the middle of the night and was startled to find Ruth lying at his feet (Ruth 3:8), who then expressed her desire for Boaz to serve as her kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 3:9), to protect and provide for her as the widow of his deceased relative (see Lev. 25:25; Deut. 25:5).  Boaz was pleased by her request and acknowledged Ruth as a woman of excellence, whose inner qualities appealed to him (Ruth 3:10-11).  However, Boaz recognized there was another kinsman-redeemer whose legal right was greater than his (Ruth 3:12-13).  Being a man of excellence (Ruth 2:1), Boaz promised to quickly pursue the matter (Ruth 3:13b), then advised Ruth to wait until morning, at which time he gave her a large portion of food as a gesture of his good intention (Ruth 3:14-15).  Ruth then returned to Naomi with the good news of Boaz’ reply (Ruth 3:16-17), and Naomi advised her to wait until she hears the news of Boaz’ handling of the matter (Ruth 3:18). 
Boaz and Ruth both modeled godly virtues, which are those settled inner qualities which conform to the character of God and are manifest in the thoughts, words and actions of a regenerate person. Some of the virtues that Boaz and Ruth displayed include: A) Commitment to God, His will, and His people (Ruth 1:16-17; 2:11-12; 3:12-13; cf. Rom. 12:1-2; Gal. 6:10). B) A strong work ethic (Ruth 2:7, 3:2; cf. Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:7-9). C) Compassion for the less fortunate (Ruth 2:8-16; 18; 3:15-17; cf. Jam. 1:27; 1 John 3:17). D) A desire to protect and help the weak (Ruth 2:8-9; 3:10-11; cf. Acts 20:35; Rom. 15:1-2; 1 Thess. 5:14). E) A desire to seek the best interest of others (Ruth 3:1-5; cf. Eph. 4:1-2; Phil. 2:3-4).

Ruth 3:1-18

Ruth 3:1-18
Dr. Steven R. Cook
 
Then [at the end of harvest season] Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? [i.e. lasting security] 2 “Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight [threshing = separating the kernels of grain from the chaff]. 3 “Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes [perhaps to indicate she is passed grieving her deceased husband; see Gen. 38:14; 2 Sam. 14:2], and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 “It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down [a picture of submission implying a request for marriage]; then he will tell you what you shall do.” 5 She said to her, “All that you say I will do.” 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did according to all that her mother-in-law had commanded her. 7 When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain; and she came secretly, and uncovered his feet and lay down [an expression of submission]. 8 It happened in the middle of the night that the man was startled and bent forward; and behold, a woman was lying at his feet. 9 He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering [כָּנָף kanaph – lit. wing – i.e. “cover me with the covering I removed from you”; a picture of protection and provision; cf. Ezek. 16:8] over your maid, for you are a close relative [גֹאֵל - goel – kinsman-redeemer].” 10 Then he said, “May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness [חֶסֶד chesed – loyal-love; i.e. to carry on the name of her deceased husband] to be better than the first [to sacrifice all to care for Naomi; see Ruth 1:16-17] by not going after young men, whether poor or rich [Ruth pursued a marriage that would provide protection and provision for her and Naomi]. 11 “Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask [concerning marriage], for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence [אֵ֥שֶׁת חַ֖יִל - esheth chayil – woman of worth; cf. Prov. 31:10  the woman of excellence has a strong work ethic, commitment to family and concern for others]. 12 “Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I [Boaz recognizes the legal right of a closer relative; thus honoring/submitting to God’s word]. 13 “Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you [as the Law directs], good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives [i.e. swearing an oath of promise; see 1 Kings 1:29-30]. Lie down until morning.” 14 So she lay at his feet until morning and rose before one could recognize another; and he said [probably to his workers], “Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor [to avoid gossip and protect her reputation].” 15 Again he said, “Give me the cloak that is on you and hold it.” So she held it, and he measured six measures of barley and laid it on her [approximately 60 pounds, as a sign of his good will]. Then she went into the city. 16 When she came to her mother-in-law, she said, “How did it go, my daughter?” [i.e. did Boaz agree to the proposal?] And she told her all that the man had done for her. 17 She said, “These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said, ‘Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’” [Boaz is thoughtful about others] 18 Then she said, “Wait, my daughter, until you know how the matter turns out; for the man will not rest until he has settled it today.” [Boaz is not a procrastinator]

Ruth 2:1-23 Summary

Summary of Ruth 2:1-23:
 
The Central Idea of the Text is that Ruth fell under the gracious care of Boaz, her kinsman-redeemer.
Ruth went to glean from the fields in order to get food for her and Naomi and was providentially guided to the field of Boaz, her kinsman (Ruth 2:1-3). Boaz reveals himself as one who cares for the poor and desires to bless them (Ruth 2:4).  Boaz notices Ruth and enquires about her and receives a glowing report (Ruth 2:5-7).  Boaz, moved with compassion, tells Ruth to stay in his fields for her protection and provision (Ruth 2:8-13).  More so, Boaz welcomed Ruth into his company and personally served her, providing for her from among the harvest and not merely the edges of his field (Ruth 2:14-16).  Ruth worked hard and shared her resources with Naomi (Ruth 2:17-18).  Naomi learned that Ruth had been blessed by Boaz and informed her that he was a kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 2:19-21); a term employed of God (see 6:6; 15:13; Isa. 41:14).  Finally, Ruth explained that Boaz offered his provision and protection to her during the harvest season (Ruth 2:22-23).
God’s providential protection and provision for Ruth and Naomi came through Boaz, who modeled faith in God and favor to those under his care, a favor that went beyond what the law required. Favor among men is often the result of God’s sovereign work in the hearts of others ( 39:21; Ex. 3:21; 11:3; Dan. 1:9).  Ruth modeled a godly worker who shared her resources with her family and who demonstrated humility and integrity.  God is gracious to us (Eph. 2:1-10), provides for all our needs (Eph. 1:3; Phil. 4:19), and blesses us beyond what we deserve (Rom. 8:28-38; Eph. 3:20-21; 1 Pet. 1:3-5).

Ruth 2:1-23

Ruth 2:1-23
Dr. Steven R. Cook
 
Now Naomi had a kinsman of her husband, a man of great wealth, of the family of Elimelech [see Ruth 1:3], whose name was Boaz [בֹּעַז Boaz - quickness]. 2 And Ruth the Moabitess [emphasizing her Gentile heritage; cf. Ruth 1:22; 2:6, 21; 4:5, 10] said to Naomi, “Please let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain [see Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:19] after one in whose sight I may find favor [חֵן chen – favor, grace].” And she said to her, “Go, my daughter.” 3 So she departed and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers; and she happened [by divine providence] to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. 4 Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, “May the LORD be with you.” [an expression of faith that desires God’s best for the needy] And they said to him, “May the LORD bless you.” [an expression of faith that desires God’s blessing to the merciful-wealthy] 5 Then Boaz said to his servant who was in charge of the reapers, “Whose young woman is this?” [Boaz takes note of Ruth] 6 The servant in charge of the reapers replied, “She is the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of Moab 7 “And she said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves [asks permission rather than assuming her rights].’ Thus she came and has remained from the morning until now; she has been sitting in the house for a little while [working hard, taking short breaks].” 8 Then Boaz said to Ruth, “Listen carefully, my daughter. Do not go to glean in another field; furthermore, do not go on from this one, but stay here with my maids. 9 “Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them. Indeed, I have commanded the servants not to touch you. When you are thirsty, go to the water jars and drink from what the servants draw.” [offering Ruth protection and provision beyond what the Law required] 10 Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your sight that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?” [Ruth was surprised by grace] 11 Boaz replied to her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband has been fully reported to me, and how you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and came to a people that you did not previously know [demonstrating unselfish love to care for Naomi; see Ruth 1:16-17]. 12 “May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge [The Lord would fulfill Boaz’ request through Boaz himself].” 13 Then she said, “I have found favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and indeed have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants.” 14 At mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here, that you may eat of the bread and dip your piece of bread in the vinegar [making Ruth feel welcome in his company].” So she sat beside the reapers; and he served her roasted grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left. 15 When she rose to glean, Boaz commanded his servants, saying, “Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not insult her. 16 “Also you shall purposely pull out for her some grain from the bundles and leave it that she may glean [providing more than what the Law prescribed], and do not rebuke her [i.e. do not make her feel rejected].” 17 So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley [i.e. about thirty pounds]. 18 She took it up and went into the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also took it out and gave Naomi what she had left after she was satisfied. 19 Her mother-in-law then said to her, “Where did you glean today and where did you work? May he who took notice of you be blessed [realizing Ruth had received special treatment].” So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, “The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz.” 20 Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he [Boaz] be blessed of the LORD who has not withdrawn his kindness [חֶסֶד chesed – loyal-love] to the living and to the dead [i.e. Ruth, Naomi, and her dead sons].” Again Naomi said to her, “The man is our relative, he is one of our closest relatives [גָּאַל gaal – redeemer, i.e. a family-guardian who cares for the widows of his diseased relatives; see Deut. 25:5-10; Ruth 4:5].” 21 Then Ruth the Moabitess said, “Furthermore, he said to me, ‘You should stay close to my servants until they have finished all my harvest.’” 22 Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, “It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maids, so that others do not fall upon you in another field [and harm her].” 23 So she stayed close by the maids of Boaz in order to glean until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest [two month process – April thru June]. And she lived with her mother-in-law [and cared for her].

Ruth 1:1-22

Summary of Ruth 1:1-22:
The Central Idea of the Text is that Ruth abandoned her birth-family and culture and entrusted herself to God, committing to care for Naomi, her mother-in-law.
The chapter opens with a Jewish family leaving Israel because of a famine and traveling to Moab (Ruth 1:1-2). Elimelech died sometime after entering Moab and his two sons, Malhon and Chilion, married Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth, and remained there ten years until they died (Ruth 1:3-5).  Naomi heard there was food in Israel and decided to return to her homeland (Ruth 1:6-7).  Naomi then encouraged Orpah and Ruth to return to their families and remarry (Ruth 1:8-15).  After much weeping, Orpah consented, but Ruth clung to Naomi (Ruth 1:14).  Ruth then abandoned her birth-family and culture and entrusted herself to God and committed to care for Naomi (Ruth 1:16-17).  Then Naomi and Ruth traveled to Bethlehem and arrived at the beginning of the barley harvest (Ruth 1:18-22).  Naomi originally left Israel because of a food famine in the land and returned with a famine in her soul, believing God was against her (Ruth 1:20-21).  However, though Ruth had suffered greatly too—being poor, husbandless and childless—her faith in God was unshaken and the Lord would eventually bless Naomi through Ruth (Ruth 4:14-15).  Ruth’s selfless character became well known in Bethlehem (Ruth 2:11). 
God will, at times, permit us to leave the place He wants us to be, and after a time of suffering, will forgive and restore us when we return to Him (Isa. 55:7; Micah 7:18; cf. Luke 15:11-24). Trials and hardships provide an opportunity to live by faith and to let our lives shine for others to see (Ruth 2:11).  Faith in God lifts us above the circumstances of our lives so that we can thank Him for the things He causes that help us to be better rather than bitter (Rom. 5:1-3; 8:28; Eph. 5:20; 1 Thess. 5:18; Jam. 1:2-4).  Scripture reveals that God is not only with us (Heb. 13:5-6), but that He is for us (Rom. 8:31), and this gives us stability in our souls while living in an unstable and hostile world (Isa. 26:3-4; Matt. 6:25-34; Phil. 4:6).

Proverbs 31 - A Woman of Excellence

The Proverbs 31 Woman
Dr. Steven R. Cook
     Proverbs 31 describes the woman of excellence. The phrase an excellent wife (Prov 31:10; Heb. אֵשֶׁת־חַיִל esheth chayil) was first used of Ruth, who was described as a woman of excellence (Ruth 3:11, NASB) or a woman of noble character (CSB). Ruth was the great-grandmother of King David, who married Bathsheba, who is perhaps the one who shared her wisdom with her son, King Solomon (Prov 31:1). If this is correct, then it’s possible Bathsheba saw in Ruth a template for the woman of noble character. A study of the book of Ruth reveals she was committed to God and His people (Ruth 1:16-17; 2:11), possessed a strong work ethic (Ruth 2:7, 17), listened to good advice (Ruth 2:8-9; 3:1-6), showed respect to others (Ruth 2:10), cared for the needy (Ruth 2:17-18), sought to marry a noble man (Ruth 3:7-10; 4:13), and was praised for her excellence and love for others (Ruth 3:11; 4:15).
     According to Proverbs 31:10-31, the excellent wife is precious to her husband (Prov 31:10), and he trusts her (Prov 31:11). It is said, “She does him good and not evil all the days of her life” (Prov 31:12). She delights to work with her hands, knowing she’s providing for the good of her family (Prov 31:13, 15, 17-19, 27). She’s a smart shopper (Pro 31:14), and savvy business woman (Pro 31:16, 24), who is recognized for her work (Prov 31:31). She uses her time well (Pro 31:15, 27), is energetic and strong (Pro 31:17), cares for the poor and needy (Prov 31:20), provides for those in her household (Prov 31:21, 27), and does not neglect her own needs or appearance (Prov 31:22). As she is respected in the home, her husband is respected in the community (Pro 31:23), and both he and her children give praise for her dignity (Prov 31:28). She has an optimistic outlook on life, as “Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she smiles at the future” (Prov 31:25). She is also noted for her wisdom, and “the teaching of kindness is on her tongue” (Prov 31:26). She is the ideal wife, for though many women have done nobly, she excels them all (Prov 31:29). What makes this woman so excellent? What drives her to possess all the virtues of a godly woman, for which her husband praises her? Solomon tells us. It’s not her personal charm, which is deceitful; nor her physical beauty, which is fleeting (Pro 31:30a). Rather, it’s because she is “a woman who fears the LORD” (Prov 31:30b). This one “shall be praised” by all who know and appreciate her godliness. What is prioritized is the inner qualities of godliness and virtue that make for an enjoyable, stable, and lasting marriage. Other qualities and features of godly women are as follows:
I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Tim 2:9-12)
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. (Tit 2:4-6)
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. (1 Pet 3:1-6)
 
 

Introduction to Ruth

Introduction to Ruth
Steven R. Cook
Title:
The book of Ruth is titled after a Moabitess who had married a Hebrew.  After the death of her husband, Ruth followed her mother-in-law back to Israel where she cared for her.
Author:
The author is not known, though Samuel seems likely. 
Date:
Ruth was written during the period of the Judges (Ruth 1:1).  The explanation of an unpracticed tradition (Ruth 4:7), as well as the genealogy of David (Ruth 4:17-22), would suggest the events of the book occurred in the latter part of the twelfth century B.C. 
Audience:
The audience appears to be Israelites living during the time of David, since he is the last person mentioned in the book (Ruth 4:22). 
Purpose:
The book was written to highlight God’s sovereignty, loyal-love and providential care over those who trusted Him during difficult times (Ruth 2:12).  Ruth—a Moabitess—trusted God and agreed to care for Naomi, her mother-in-law, who had lost her husband and two sons (Ruth 1:1-22).  Boaz, as the kinsman-redeemer (Ruth 3:9), is a model of Christ, who willingly redeemed us with His own blood (1 Pet. 1:17-19).  The book also reveals God’s grace in saving a Gentile woman who was included in the genealogical line of David (Ruth 4:17-22) and Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:5).
 

Deuteronomy 20:10-20 - The Importance of Choosing Righteous Friends

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), and how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25). In the previous section, Moses encouraged his people to be strengthened mentally in times of conflict (Deut 20:1). He also gave instructions to the priests to encourage the people with divine viewpoint (Deut 20:2-4), and to the officers to exempt certain men from military service (Deut 20:5-9). In the current pericope, Moses provides instruction concerning war with cities outside Canaan (Deut 20:10-15), and cities inside Canaan (Deut 20:16-20).
     In Moses’ opening words, he directed Israel to offer terms of peace when approaching a city outside the land of Canaan, saying, “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace” (Deut 20:10). Deuteronomy 20:15 makes it clear that Moses is referring to cities outside the promised land. This likely refers to cities that God would grant His people if their land was expanded beyond the Canaanite territory (Deut 19:8-9), which territory was originally promised to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 15:18; cf. Num 34:1-15).
     If that expansion occurred, then the Israelites were to offer the residents of the city terms of peace (שָׁלוֹם shalom). However, terms of peace did not mean nonaggression, but rather, that the residents of the city could choose a vassal status rather than destruction. This is obvious from the following verse in which Moses said, “If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you” (Deut 20:11). Eugene Merrill states:
"The formula here, “If you call out to it with respect to peace,” followed by the words “if they reply peace to you” (Deut 20:11), expresses the technical language of making treaty (cf. Judg 21:13). The idea was not that of a simple nonaggression pact in which both parties agreed to live in peace but a demand for capitulation. Only under such terms could the threatened city expect survival. To make peace was therefore tantamount to making a covenant, the kind in which the city under attack placed itself in subservience to the peoples demanding the terms of peace."[1]
     But there was always the possibility that the residents of the city might prefer war to vassal status. Moses addressed this scenario, saying, “However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it” (Deut 20:12). Ancient cities commonly had fortified walls as well as food and water reserves in case they came under attack. When attacking a city, it was common to besiege it, which meant surrounding the city and cutting off its food and water supplies. In this way, an advancing army could starve the residents of the city into submission.
     But such efforts of fortification could prevent God’s people from advancing and gaining victory. Moses said, “When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword” (Deut 20:13). Victory in this context is given by the Lord. He is the One who will give the city and its inhabitants into the hands of His people, Israel; and this because the residents of the city refused the offer of peace. In such a situation, the Israelites, after defeating the city residents in battle, were to execute all the men of the city.
     Moses said, “Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you” (Deut 20:14). Here was discriminate warfare that killed only the hostile and let the women, children, and animals live. The spoils of war from Israel’s enemies were regarded as what “the LORD your God has given you.” Again, their military efforts were to be viewed from the divine perspective. But this did not mean that those taken captive were to be mistreated. Though it was common in the ancient world to rape and murder women who had been taken as captives, God did not permit this. In fact, some of the women could be taken as wives, and if this happened, they were granted legal protections (Deut 21:10-14). For clarity, Moses explains these military practices were to be followed only for cities outside the land of Canaan, saying, “Thus, you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby” (Deut 20:15).
     Shifting policy, Moses offers a different directive concerning the residents of Canaan, saying, “Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deut 20:16). Remember, the land of Canaan belonged to Israel by divine right, for the Owner of the land (Lev 25:23) promised it to them as part of the Abrahamic contract (Gen 12:1-3; 15:18; 17:7-8; 26:3-4; 28:13-14). Therefore, the Canaanites were merely squatters who needed to be removed, and this because they had become grossly immoral and were under divine judgment.
     Concerning the Canaanites, Moses said, “But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you” (Deut 20:17). The words “utterly destroy” translate the Hebrew חָרָם charam, which is found in a number of passages (Num 21:2-3; Deut 2:34; 3:6; 7:2; 13:15; 20:17; Josh 2:10; 6:21; 8:26; 10:1, 35, 37, 39, 40; 11:11-12, 20-21). Leon Wood states, “Usually ḥāram means a ban for utter destruction, the compulsory dedication of something which impedes or resists God’s work, which is considered to be accursed before God.”[2] God made it very clear that the Canaanites were to be totally destroyed because of their extreme wickedness (Deut 9:4-5).
     Remember, the Canaanites were an exceptionally wicked people whom God had marked out for judgment (Lev 18:25; Deut 9:5) after giving them four hundred years of grace (Gen 15:16). Some of the specific sins mentioned among the Canaanites included gross sexual immorality, such as incest (Lev 18:1-20; 20:10-12, 14, 17, 19-21), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13), and sex with animals (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16). They also engaged in the occult (Lev 20:6), were hostile toward parents (Lev 20:9), and offered their children as sacrifices to Molech (Lev 18:21; 20:1-5; cf. Deut 12:31; 18:10). God told Israel not to do these wicked things, for the Canaanites “did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them” (Lev 20:23; cf. Lev 18:25).
     God gave a second reason why He wanted the Canaanites destroyed, namely, “so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God” (Deut 20:18; cf. Ex 23:33; Josh 23:12-13). Sadly, we know that Joshua and Israel failed to kill all the Canaanites, but sought to make them forced laborers (Josh 16:10; 17:13; Judg 1:28-35). Furthermore, Israel failed to obey the Lord (see the book of Judges), and the immoral culture of the Canaanites spread among God’s people, who themselves began to practice all the evil things God hates (Deut 12:31), including idolatry and child sacrifice (2 Ki 3:27; 16:3; Psa 106:37-38; Isa 57:5; Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; Ezek 16:20-21). Because Israel eventually became corrupt, God then destroyed and expelled them from the land by means of military defeat from their enemies. This happened when the ten northern tribes of Israel fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC and the two southern tribes of Judah fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC.
     Moses then addressed matters of ecology in times of war, saying, “When you besiege a city a long time, to make war against it in order to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them; for you may eat from them, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you?” (Deut 20:19). Trees do not commit evil, and should not be cut down indiscriminately like Israel’s enemies. Because Israel would soon possess the land of Canaan, it was to their own interests to preserve the trees surrounding the cities. Moses then differentiated which trees could be cut down, saying, “Only the trees which you know are not fruit trees you shall destroy and cut down, that you may construct siegeworks against the city that is making war with you until it falls” (Deut 20:20). Daniel Block states, “In ancient warfare strategy, the trees of vanquished territories would be cut down for several reasons: (1) as wood for siege structures and fuel for the invaders; (2) as retribution for the enemy’s resistance and defiance; (3) as a tactic in psychological warfare, to hasten submission.”[3] However, Israel was to demonstrate wise discrimination. Eugene Merrill states:
"The “War Manual” ends with a most curious and, at first blush, irrelevant paragraph about the treatment of trees in a time of siege. It does provide practical information about the preservation of fruit trees for their nutritional value and allows the use of others to build siege works (māṣôr, lit., “enclosure,” perhaps encircling trenches or staging). The real thrust of the passage, however, is to contrast the tree with humankind (v. 19b). It is only humans, ironically the image of God and the crowning glory of creation, who sin against the Creator in such egregious ways as to call upon themselves divine judgment. The innocent tree, tainted as it is by the fall of humankind, is nevertheless not culpable and should therefore be spared."[4]
Present Application
     God’s directive for Israel to destroy the Canaanites was twofold: 1) because the Canaanites were excessively wicked and under God’s judgment (Deut 9:4-5), and 2) so they would not become a corrupting influence on His people (Deut 20:18). Similarly, those we allow into our lives will influence us, either in good or bad ways.
     The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the importance of making good choices, especially as it relates to friends. Solomon wrote, “The righteous choose their friends carefully, but the way of the wicked leads them astray” (Prov 12:26 NIV). Elsewhere, Solomon said, “He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm” (Prov 13:20). The word walk translates the Hebrew verb הָלַךְ halak, which here refers to “a lifestyle, [or] a pattern of conduct.”[5] Our lifestyle is influenced by our friends, who reinforce our path, either for good or harm. The one who chooses wise friends will gain wisdom and be blessed. A wise person—biblically speaking—is one who fears the Lord (Prov 1:7a), whereas, “fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov 1:7b). The wise person receives “instruction in wise behavior, doing what is right, just, and fair” (Prov 1:3), and this according to the standard of God’s Word. Simply stated, the biblically wise person is the one who learns and lives God’s Word on a regular basis. Jesus said, “everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt 7:24).
     There is a danger in choosing foolish friends, for the one who befriends a fool will end a fool, and this with injury. Jesus said, “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (Matt 7:26). Dwight Pentecost states, “A fool is not necessarily one who is marked by a low IQ but one who leaves God out of his consciousness…The fool is the man who does not take God into consideration in every area of his life.”[6] Merrill F. Unger adds, “The ‘fool’ is not so much one lacking in mental powers, as one who misuses them; not one who does not reason, but reasons wrongly. In Scripture the ‘fool’ primarily is the person who casts off the fear of God and thinks and acts as if he could safely disregard the eternal principles of God’s righteousness (Psa 14:1; Prov 14:9; Jer 17:11; etc.).”[7]
     As Christians, we choose what paths we follow. Biblically, there is a righteous path and a wicked path, and we must choose the former and avoid the latter. David wrote, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers!” (Psa 1:1; cf. Prov 4:14-17). David generally made good choices throughout his life, and this meant avoiding wicked people. He said, “I do not sit with deceitful men, nor will I go with pretenders. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked” (Psa 26:4-5). Elsewhere he said, “He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; he who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me” (Psa 101:7).
     The psalmist also wrote, “I am a companion of all those who fear You, and of those who keep Your precepts” (Psa 119:63). Allen Ross writes, “The psalmist’s loyalty to the LORD also finds expression in his association with other believers—he is a companion (חָבֵר) to all who fear the LORD, meaning those who keep his commandments. The tie that binds the devout together is the commitment to keep God’s commands.”[8] And Charles Spurgeon adds, “We can hardly hope to be right in the future unless we are right now. The holy man spent his nights with God and his days with God’s people. Those who fear God love those who fear him, and they make small choice in their company so long as the men are truly God-fearing.”[9]
     In the New Testament we learn about the good choices Christians were making as they “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). The words continually devoting themselves translates the Greek word προσκαρτερέω proskartereo, which denotes steadfast commitment and constant devotion. The two things these Christians were constantly devoted to were: 1) the apostle’s teaching, and 2) fellowship with other believers (which included a time of meals and prayer).
     Christians are to live righteously, as this is consistent with our identity in Christ. The apostle Paul implores us “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love” (Eph 4:1-2). Here, our pattern of behavior should mirror our position in Christ. Paul uses similar language when he writes, “You were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light; for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth, trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph 5:6-10). Since we are called to such a high standard of living, it’s very important that we choose our friends carefully, to make sure there is mutual interest in walking with God and living as He directs.
     For this reason, Paul directed the Christians at Corinth not to associate with people who are committed to live by worldly values. Of the unbeliever, Paul wrote, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14). Of the worldly Christian, Paul wrote, “not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?” (1 Cor 5:11-12; cf., Jam 4:4). The general reasoning behind these directives is that “bad associations corrupt good morals” (1 Cor 15:33).
     Close relationships should be developed over time, only as we get to know others, hearing their words and watching their ways, and feeling confident they are among the faithful righteous. Some of the characteristics of a righteous person include:
 
A commitment to learning God’s Word (Psa 1:1-2; Acts 2:42; Rom 6:17).
Submitting to God’s will (Rom 12:1-2; Jam 1:22).
Confessing sin to God daily (1 John 1:9).
Displaying Christian love (John 13:34; Rom 13:8; 1 Th 4:9; 1 Cor 13:4-8a).
Seeking to glorify God (1 Cor 10:31).
Living by faith in order to please the Lord (Heb 10:38; 11:6; 2 Cor 5:9).
Speaking biblical truth in love (Eph 4:15, 25).
Modeling humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance and peace (Eph 4:1-3).
Being forgiving (Matt 18:21-22).
Doing good (Gal 6:10).
Encouraging other believers to do good (Heb 10:24).
Desiring fellowship with growing believers (Heb 10:25).
Praying for others (1 Th 5:17; 2 Th 1:11; Jam 5:16).
Building others up in the Lord (1 Th 5:11).
Being devoted to fellow believers (Rom 12:10).
 
[1] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 285.
[2] Leon J. Wood, “744 חָרַם,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 324.
[3] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 478–479.
[4] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary, 287.
[5] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 924.
[6] J. Dwight Pentecost, Designed to Be Like Him: Understanding God’s Plan for Fellowship, Conduct, Conflict, and Maturity (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001), 55.
[7] Merrill Frederick Unger, R. K. Harrison, Howard Frederic Vos et al., “Fool”, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988).
[8] Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms (90–150): Commentary, vol. 3, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2016), 519.
[9] C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 111-119, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 257.

Deuteronomy 20:1-9 - Framing Difficulties from the Divine Perspective

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), and how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25). Having discussed unjust killing in the previous section (Deut 19:11-12), Moses now addresses God’s regulations for holy war—justified killing by divine mandate—and encourages his people to be strengthened mentally in times of conflict (Deut 20:1-4), and provides valid exemptions for military service (Deut 20:5-9). Moses will address the subject of war in later verses as well (Deut 21:10-14; 23:9-14; 24:5).
     Moses opens this section, saying, “When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the LORD your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you” (Deut 20:1). The pericope opens with a temporal clause, when (כִּי ki), which assumes a future reality orchestrated by God. It’s not a question of if Israel would face military conflicts, but when. This verse implies offensive action against the Canaanites, whom God had already judged as worthy of death, and His judgment was to come by the hands of His people, Israel (see Deut 7:1-2). The enemy under consideration here is the Canaanites, who were extremely corrupt and under divine judgment. Eugene Merrill writes:
"The wicked nations as a whole were viewed as under hostile and even demonic leadership and so they had to either capitulate to Yahweh’s lordship or face his wrathful judgment. The peoples of Canaan in particular were to be eradicated, for they occupied the land of Israel’s inheritance and, furthermore, constituted a never-ending threat to Israel’s purity and separateness as a kingdom of priests. The biblical witness is unambiguous that the Canaanites were beyond hope of redemption and had to be placed under the merciless ḥērem of the Lord."[1]
     War was inevitable and God’s people needed to have courage. Naturally, when the Israelites saw “horses and chariots and people more numerous” than themselves, they would be tempted to feel overwhelmed in their souls, which would lead them to fear. However, Moses told them, “do not be afraid” of the enemy, and then provided them divine viewpoint to stabilize their souls, saying, “for the LORD your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you.” Moses had spoken previously to Israel about not fearing their enemies (cf., Deut 3:22; 7:17-24), and he would do so again (Deut 31:6-8). Repetition is necessary to learning, and also for strengthening one’s faith in the Lord. To help strengthen their faith, Moses told them to recall God’s faithfulness forty years earlier when He delivered them from Pharoah and his army, which was the greatest military superpower of their day. When standing at the edge of the Red Sea, Moses said to his people, “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent” (Ex 14:13-14). There were times when God called His people to do nothing, but watch Him fight their battles. And the Lord fought alone, killing the Egyptian soldiers who were pursuing His people (see Ex 14:22-31).[2]
     However, there were times when God required His people to take up arms and engage their enemy, and in those moments, He would fight with them, ensuring their victory. For example, David, when standing against Goliath, said, “the battle is the LORD’S and He will give you into our hands” (1 Sam 17:47), and then picked up his sling and stone and struck his enemy with a blow that killed him (1 Sam 17:48-49). God’s Word was intended to help His people frame the situation in such a way that they factored God into their circumstances, as He would be the One who would fight with them. Divine viewpoint always gives confidence when facing difficulties, whatever they may be (2 Ki 6:11-17). For example, when facing a conflict with an overwhelming Assyrian army (2 Ch 32:1), King Hezekiah “spoke encouragingly” to his people (2 Ch 32:6), telling them, “Be strong and courageous, do not fear or be dismayed because of the king of Assyria nor because of all the horde that is with him; for the one with us is greater than the one with him. With him is only an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us and to fight our battles” (2 Ch 32:7-8a). If the people of God’s kingdom were to be strengthened in their souls, they would need to place their focus on God rather than the overwhelming problem at hand. Apparently, the people had positive volition and received his words. And the result was, “Hezekiah’s words greatly encouraged the people” (2 Ch 32:8b). Now they were ready to face the enemy. Now they were ready to win.
     Moses continued, saying, “When you are approaching the battle, the priest shall come near and speak to the people” (Deut 20:2). When approaching their enemies, the army would naturally factor in what they saw, and this might lead them to fear. Enter the priest, who would to come near to the people and speak divine viewpoint thus offsetting any fears that would arise from what they saw. Futhermore, Moses provided the priests a script to follow, saying, “He shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, you are approaching the battle against your enemies today. Do not be fainthearted. Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them, 4 for the LORD your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you’” (Deut 20:3-4). Fear was to be the mental attitude of God’s enemies, not God’s people. Faith in God was the antidote to fear. Of course, this also assumed that Israel was living righteously as God directed. If they were walking with God and adhering to His directives (Deut 28:1-2), they could expect victory in every situation (Deut 28:7). However, if they failed to walk with God and were living disobedient to His will (Deut 28:15), then they would experience military defeat (Deut 28:25-26). Success or failure was contingent on their daily walk with God.
     It should be noted that Israel did not have a standing army, but called up citizens for war when needed. And, in some situations, there would be exemptions from military service. The exemptions removed men from military service who might be distracted from their duties in a time of war. Such distractions would not only be a danger to themselves, but also to their fellow soldiers. God was more concerned about the quality of the army rather than the quantity of numbers. After all, success depended on the Lord, not the size of His military force. In Deuteronomy 20:5-8, Moses provided four such exemptions.
     First, Moses said, “The officers also shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Who is the man that has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would dedicate it” (Deut 20:5). The reference to officers (שֹׁטֵר shoter) reveals a hierarchical structure within the military, perhaps referring to men who had combat experience. These officers were responsible for screening fellow Israelites to determine if they were eligible for short-term military service. Warren Wiersbe states:
"The priest encouraged the soldiers to face the enemy without fear, but the officers told them to go back home if they had any unfinished business. No officer wants to lead distracted soldiers whose minds and hearts are elsewhere…Paul may have had this scene in mind when he wrote 2 Timothy 2:4, “No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier.”[3]
     The first exemption was given to a man who had just built a house but not had time to live in it. God cares about property rights and establishing roots in one’s own home. Therefore, He permitted a man time to live in his own house and secure his roots there before being called up to war.
     Second, Moses said, “Who is the man that has planted a vineyard and has not begun to use its fruit? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would begin to use its fruit” (Deut 20:6). Israel was primarily an agrarian economy, and the production of crops was necessary for the family as well as the community. According to Leviticus 19:23-25, the average time to plant a crop and expect a fruitful yield was four to five years, which could be the duration for the exemption. If such a man were called to battle, he might be distracted by his unfinished vineyard and the possibility that another man might benefit from his labor. God cares about compensation for work, and this extends to the man who has planted his vineyard and labored for its production, but not had time to enjoy it. God wanted that man to enjoy the reward of his labor before being called to military service.
     Third, Moses said, “And who is the man that is engaged to a woman and has not married her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her” (Deut 20:7). God is concerned about the institution of marriage, as its proper function is foundational for a stable society. If a man were engaged to be married, but then died before being united to his wife, then he would have no offspring to continue his family name or to care for his inheritance. Later, Moses would grant a one-year exemption to the newly married man, as this would allow him time enjoy his newlywed wife and strengthen his marriage (Deut 24:5).
     The most likely reasons for these three exemptions include the necessity for keeping certain aspects a society undamaged and healthy—home, business, and marriage—as these provide national stability. Also, if a man were called to battle, he might be distracted from his service because of matters back at the home or the farm. Warren Wiersbe states:
"These three exceptions suggest to us that God is more interested in our enjoying the common blessings of life—homes, harvests, and honeymoons—than devoting ourselves only to the battles of life. He didn’t want any of the Jewish men to use their military responsibilities as an excuse to neglect their families, their vineyards, and their fiancées. Certainly, military service was important, but the Lord was more concerned that the men have the right priorities in life. What good was accomplished for the Jewish people if their army defeated the enemy on the field but things were falling apart back home?"[4]
     Lastly, Moses said, “Then the officers shall speak further to the people and say, ‘Who is the man that is afraid and fainthearted? Let him depart and return to his house, so that he might not make his brothers’ hearts melt like his heart’” (Deut 20:8). In this verse Moses returns to the topic of fear with which he started his discussion (Deut 20:1). If a person could not live by faith in the face of battle, such that fear of the situation was greater than his faith in God to deliver, he was excused from the conflict altogether, lest his fear negatively impact the mental attitude of other Israelites and thus weaken their souls in the face of conflict. There does not seem to be any condemnation given to those who are afraid. Though there is a sinful fear, it could also be that this fear is the result of spiritual immaturity, or that the person naturally had a psychologically timid disposition, and such men were not emotionally fit to face the pressures of war. Peter Craigie writes:
"These people were not to be bullied into battle, scorned for their fear, or court-martialed; they were to be sent home along with the others who qualified for exemption. The reason is clear, for fear in an army is like an infectious plague, which can quickly cripple the ranks with its debilitating effect. The strength of the army, it is true, lay in God’s presence; but to experience God’s presence in battle, the people were to be wholly committed to him, and fear undermined the wholeness of commitment."[5]
     Finally, Moses said, “When the officers have finished speaking to the people, they shall appoint commanders of armies at the head of the people” (Deut 20:9). After exempting certain men from military service, Moses instructs the officers to assign commanders to serve as leaders of regiments. This verse further demonstrates the hierarchical structure necessary for a military to function properly, as authority is delegated from one person to another.
Present Application
     Israel was a theocracy, and God was their King (Isa 33:22). The Lord promised to give them physical land which was occupied at that time by the Canaanites. This was holy war, led by God Himself who was directing them into battle and promising victory over their enemies. God’s command for holy war is not applicable for Christians, for God is not at this time working to establish a physical theocratic kingdom on earth as He was through Israel. For Christians, our battles are primarily spiritual, not physical. This is why the apostle Paul stated, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses” (2 Cor 10:3-4), and “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12).
     Apart from justified self-defense, and the duty to serve one’s country in military service, Christians are commanded to “pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14). The apostle Paul stated, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (Rom 12:18). As Christians, we generally live in obedience to the government as good citizens of the land (Rom 13:1-5). However, this does not mean blind submission, as we may engage in acts of civil disobedience when necessary (Ex 1:15-17; Dan 3:1-18; 6:1-23; Acts 5:27-29). In cases of civil disobedience, we disobey human government when it commands us to disobey God.
     The Christian who is advancing to spiritual maturity by faithfully learning and living God’s Word will prove most useful to God (2 Tim 2:15; 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:2). But this takes time and commitment (Rom 12:1-2). The challenge for us as Christians is not to let the hostile people of this world intimidate us into silence or inaction. And, of course, we must be careful not to become bitter, fearful, or hateful like those who attack us. The Bible teaches us to love those who hate us (Matt 5:44-45; Rom 12:14, 17-21), and to be kind, patient, and gentle (2 Tim 2:24-26; cf. Eph 4:1-2; Col 3:13-14). This is accomplished by faith, not feelings. What we need is courage to share the gospel of grace and to speak biblical truth. The hope is that those who are positive to God will be rescued from Satan’s domain of darkness (Col 1:13). We also live in the reality that God’s plans will advance. He will win. His future kingdom on earth will come to pass. Christ will return. Jesus will put down all forms of rebellion—both satanic and human—and will rule this world with perfect righteousness and justice. But until then, we must continue to learn and live God’s Word and fight the good fight. We are to live by faith (Heb 10:38; 11:6), share the gospel of grace (1 Cor 15:3-4), disciple others (Matt 28:19-20), be good and do good (Gal 6:9-10; Tit 2:11-14), and look forward to return of Christ (Tit 2:13).
 
[1] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 282.
[2] The destruction of Pharaoh and his army caused Moses to sing a war song of victory, singing, “The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is His name. Pharaoh’s chariots and his army He has cast into the sea; and the choicest of his officers are drowned in the Red Sea” (Ex 15:3-4). Moses’ sister, Miriam, led the women in song and dance, as she “took the timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dancing” (Ex 15:20). This victory song is a natural response to God for His mighty deliverance on behalf of His people. David wrote similar victory songs that extol God for His deliverance (Psalms 18 & 24).
[3] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 135.
[4] Ibid., 135–136.
[5] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 274–275.

Jeremiah 29:1-32

The order of events in Jeremiah 29 is as follows: 1) Jeremiah wrote to the Jewish captives God sent to Babylon and informed them that God’s plan was for them to stay there for seventy years and to settle in for the long haul (Jer 29:1-23). 2) Shemaiah, a captive in Babylon, wrote to Zephaniah the priest and contradicted what Jeremiah was saying (Jer 29:24-28), and requested that Zephaniah reprimand Jeremiah for his words (Jer 29:27-28). 3) Zephaniah read Shemaiah’s letter to Jeremiah (Jer 29:29), and God told Jeremiah to write to the exiles and pronounce a judgment on Shemaiah (Jer 29:30-32).  Complete set of study notes here: https://thinkingonscripture.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/jeremiah-291-32.pdf 

Deuteronomy 19:14-21 - Property Rights and Eyewitness Testimony

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), and how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25). In our current pericope on righteous living, Moses discusses property theft as well as the importance of legitimate witnesses in legal trials. In Deuteronomy 19:14, Moses expands on the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (Deut 5:19), and the tenth commandment, “You shall not covet” (Deut 5:21). And in Deuteronomy 19:15-21, Moses expands on the ninth commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deut 5:20). If Israel would obey these laws, it would reflect God’s righteous expectations for them.
     Having discussed the need for cities of refuge in the previous pericope (Deut 19:1-13), Moses briefly turns to property rights and the need to protect boundaries. His mention of cities and roads refer to land (Deut 19:2-3), which might suggest why Moses inserts a comment about personal property. Moses said, “You shall not move your neighbor’s boundary mark, which the ancestors have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God gives you to possess” (Deut 19:14). Solomon twice repeated this directive, saying, “Do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers have set” (Prov 22:28), and “Do not move the ancient boundary or go into the fields of the fatherless, 11 for their redeemer [גָּאַל gaal] is strong; he will plead their case against you” (Prov 23:10-11). This latter verse shows how the fatherless—or anyone who is weak—were vulnerable to exploitation and how God cared about their rights.
     To move a boundary mark was to steal land from one’s neighbor (Deut 5:19), which theft was predicated on coveting your neighbor’s property (Deut 5:21). There was also a curse pronounced on one who moved a boundary mark (Deut 27:17). Under the Mosaic Law, property that was sold could be redeemed by a near kinsmen (gôʾēl), and if the person was too poor to redeem it, then it would automatically be restored at the year of Jubilee (Lev 25:23-28). This assumes the individual’s right to own land and to manage that property as God expected. God would allocate the land to tribes based on their size (Num 26:52-56; cf., Num 34:13-29). Such a command not to move a boundary mark would be superfluous under socialistic or communistic ideologies. Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, said, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”[1] This is contrary to the righteousness God expects of His people concerning the protection of other people’s property, whether land or otherwise. God’s directives are, “You shall not covet” (Deut 5:21), and “You shall not steal” (Deut 5:19).
     Moses then shifts from discussing righteousness regarding property to righteousness regarding honesty about accusations against others in judicial proceedings. Moses said, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deut 19:15). A single witness was insufficient to convict a person of any crime committed against another. The law demanded two or more witnesses before a case could advance. As mentioned previously, there was always the possibility that a wicked person would present a false charge against another, thus corrupting and weaponizing the judicial system for evil ends. Solomon wrote, “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who tells lies will not escape” (Prov 19:5). The Lord had clearly forbidden this, saying, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deut 5:20). The two or three witness policy would mitigate against this sort of corruption.
     Concerning judicial matters and the possibility of false charges, Moses said, “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days” (Deut 19:16-17). The word malicious translates the Hebrew noun חָמָס chamas, which denotes violence or wrongdoing. Here, it refers to one who practices verbal violence toward another by falsely accusing him/her with the intent of causing harm by means of the judiciary. Such an accusation would first damage a person’s reputation within the community—a form of cancel culture—and then before the courts. To “stand before the LORD” meant standing before His representatives, “the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days” (Deut 19:17b). The location of the priests and judges might be the central sanctuary—the tabernacle or temple—or perhaps one of the cities assigned to the Levites. Standing before the Lord’s representatives was intended to help the accuser and the accused be mindful of God’s presence which, in this case, pertained to legal matters. Interestingly, the reference to priests and judges showed no separation between religious and judicial matters. Furthermore, if the priests and judges were properly trained, they would know God’s Word thoroughly and be qualified to administer it. Lastly, if they were themselves men of integrity, then God’s laws would be upheld and righteousness would pursue. For this reason, a single witness was not regarded as sufficient for a trial to advance. Daniel Block states:
"The demand for a plurality of witnesses is both reasonable and necessary. It is reasonable because it reduces the chance of mistaken verdicts, especially where verbal testimony is the only means by which to adjudicate a case. It is necessary because without it the judge is left to decide between two opinions—the voice of the accused or the voice of the witness—which raises the specter of prejudice and favoritism."[2]
     When a charge is brought against someone concerning a particular crime, it was incumbent upon the judges to launch a full investigation into the matter. Moses said, “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus, you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deut 19:18-19). Judgment must always be suspended until evidence is found to prosecute. In this way, a person’s innocence is maintained until evidence proves otherwise. In this scenario, if the investigation yields evidence that a false witness has falsely accused another, the judges were then required to administer punishment on the accuser as he intended to bring upon the innocent.
     If the case were made public, it would have an impact on the community, as “The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you” (Deut 19:20). Here, punishment served as a deterrent for others who might be tempted to bring false charges and weaponize the courts for sinful purposes. It should be remembered that most criminals think in terms of risk versus reward, and if the risk of punishment exceeds the payoff, it lowers the risk of criminal behavior.
     Moses then instructs, “Thus, you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). Here, Moses warns against showing pity toward criminals, as sentimentality must never override justice. Furthermore, in any society there may be a temptation to overreact at violations of the law and punish a wrongdoer more severely than his crime warranted. One can think of Lamech, who told his wives, “I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy for striking me” (Gen 4:23). This was clearly an overreaction. Moses limits the punishment to fit the crime, saying, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21b). This law has been called lex talionis, or the law of retaliation, which meant the punishment did not exceed the crime (cf., Ex 21:23-25; Lev 24:19-20). Warren Wiersbe states:
"The sentence must be neither too strict nor too easy but must be suited to what the law demands and what the convicted criminal deserves. Honest judges don’t give a murderer the same sentence they give the man who poisoned his neighbor’s cat, nor is a shoplifter given the same punishment as a kidnapper. This judicial principle emphasized fairness and humane treatment at a time in history when punishments were terribly brutal."[3]
     Justice should prevail, but in a constrained manner as the crime warrants. If Israel would obey this law, it would reflect God’s righteous expectations for them (Deut 16:20), be for their good, and He would bless them for their obedience (Deut 6:24-25).
     In 1 Kings 21:1-16 we have an example of property theft by means of false witnesses. The wicked King Ahab coveted the property of an Israelite named Naboth and offered to purchase it from him (1 Ki 21:1-2). However, Naboth refused Ahab’s offer, citing God’s Law as the reason, saying, “The LORD forbid me that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers” (1 Ki 21:3). Naboth was right to refuse King Ahab’s offer, for the Mosaic Law revealed the land really belonged to God (Lev 25:23), and He forbid the permanent sale or transfer of land from one tribe to another (Num 36:7). This upset Ahab and he went home and pouted over the matter (1 Ki 21:4). But Jezebel, Ahab’s wicked wife, conspired to get the land for him, and this by corrupt means (1 Ki 21:5-9), which included “two worthless men” who would “testify against him, saying, ‘You cursed God and the king’” (1 Ki 21:10a). The conspiracy included the leaders of the city who, after hearing the charges, were to take Naboth “and stone him to death” (1 Ki 21:10b). After the leaders of the city executed Jezebel’s directives and killed Naboth (1 Ki 21:11-14), she advised her husband to go and take possession of the land, which he did (1 Ki 21:15-16). Afterwards, God called His prophet, Elijah, to confront Ahab for his murder and theft, and to pronounce judgment upon him for his crime against Naboth (1 Ki 21:17-22), which punishment included Ahab’s death by means of military defeat in battle (1 Ki 22:34-38). Elijah also pronounced judgment upon Jezebel (1 Ki 21:23), and she died an ignoble death (2 Ki 9:30-37). Another example of lex talionis is seen in Haman, who was hanged on the gallows he intended for innocent Israelites (Est 7:9-10).
Present Application
     Christians should have a strong sense of justice derived from God and His Word. This means we should be honest toward others and speak truthfully, especially in a court of law. If attacked by another, it is valid to defend our rights under the law, just as the apostle Paul defended himself in Jerusalem when in a situation where he was about to be flogged by a Roman soldier, which might have killed him or crippled him for life. In that situation, Paul stood up for himself and exercised his legal rights as a Roman citizen, thus deterring unwarranted punishment (Acts 22:25-29).
     However, on a personal level, there may be times when we voluntarily surrender our rights for the sake of peace (Rom 12:18). In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, He told His disciples, “I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matt 5:39). And Solomon wrote, “A man’s discretion makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense” (Prov 19:11). In these situations, a believer may voluntarily surrender his/her rights in order to maintain peace. Warren Wiersbe states:
"When our Lord referred to the lex talionis in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38–42), He wasn’t talking about the official judicial system but how believers should deal with personal offenses and injuries. He didn’t rescind the Old Testament Law, because He came to fulfill it (vv. 17–20); rather, He prohibited His followers from “paying back in kind” those who offend them or take advantage of them…Jesus exhorted us not to practice personal revenge but to leave such matters in the hand of God (Rom. 12:17–21). We’re to imitate the Master and return good for evil, love for hatred, and sacrifice for selfishness (1 Peter 2:11–25)."[4]
     Lastly, there may be times when human courts are unable or unwilling to execute justice in defense of innocent victims. In those moments, we must be careful not to act in a revengeful manner. Paul stated, “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom 12:17-19). In such situations, God calls us to bring our concerns before the supreme court of heaven, trusting “the Judge of all the earth” will judge our case (Gen 18:25), for He “is a righteous judge, and a God who has indignation every day” (Psa 7:11). Jesus Himself is our example of One who brought His case before the Lord, as Peter wrote, “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Pet 2:21-23). Where human courts may fail, God will take up the case and handle the matter in His time and way. It is our responsibility to conduct ourselves honorably in the face of unjust suffering and leave justice to the Lord.
 
[1] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, (New Delhi, India, Digital Fire Publications, 2020), p 25.
[2] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 461.
[3] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 132–133.
[4] Ibid., 133.

Deuteronomy 19:1-13 - Dealing with Homicide in Ancient Israel

     In our previous lessons we looked at God’s selection of authority figures—judges (Deut 16:18-17:8), priests (Deut 17:9-13; 18:1-8), kings (Deut 17:14-20), and prophets (Deut 18:15-22)—who were assigned to lead His people into righteous living (Deut 16:20). In this next section, we will consider how the nation was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 19:1—26:19). In our current pericope on righteous living, Moses discussed cities of refuge and the role they played concerning Israelites who killed someone, either accidentally or intentionally (Deut 19:1-13). This section expands on the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder” (Deut 5:17).
     Homicide is a reality that every society faces, whether the death caused was accidental or intentional. A just society must have laws in place to handle such matters, either to protect the innocent or punish the guilty. The consistent and fair application of these laws will mark a society as righteous. This was true in Israel where God expected His people to handle cases of homicide. The pericope under consideration was addressed by Moses to the first generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt (Ex 21:12-14; Num 35:9-34).
     Moses opens the current discussion by saying, “When the LORD your God cuts off the nations, whose land the LORD your God gives you, and you dispossess them and settle in their cities and in their houses, 2 you shall set aside three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which the LORD your God gives you to possess” (Deut 19:1-2). Here, Moses directed the Israelites to establish three cities of refuge after they had taken possession of the land under Joshua, and these would be added to the three cities Moses had already assigned east of the Jordan River; namely, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Deut 4:41-43). After Joshua led the Israelites into the land, he set aside the cities of Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron (Josh 20:7–9). Cities of refuge were places where a manslayer could flee for refuge until he stood trial (Num 35:9-15). Moses had previously stated, “The cities shall be to you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer will not die until he stands before the congregation for trial” (Num 35:12; cf. Num 35:24).
     Moses also said, “You shall prepare the roads for yourself, and divide into three parts the territory of your land which the LORD your God will give you as a possession, so that any manslayer may flee there” (Deut 19:3). Here, Israelites were to make sure the roads in their land were easily navigable by travelers which, in this case, pertained to one who felt compelled to flee to a nearby town for safety after unintentionally killing another person. And the towns were to be equally spaced apart, so that the manslayer would not have to travel an exceptionally long distance and possibly be overtaken by an avenger who sought his life. Moses continued, saying, “Now this is the case of the manslayer who may flee there and live: when he kills his friend unintentionally, not hating him previously” (Deut 19:4). Here was a law of compassion, for in a case of accidental homicide, the victims consisted both of the one who lost his life as well as the one who took it. This verse also addresses motive, and considers that a person was innocent in such a situation because he had not shown past hatred for the person who was killed.
     Moses then provided an example of how one might accidentally die, saying, “as when a man goes into the forest with his friend to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down the tree, and the iron head slips off the handle and strikes his friend so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and live” (Deut 19:5).[1] If such an accidental homicide were to happen as Moses explained—and this was only a template for similar accidental killings—then the manslayer may flee to a city of refuge for temporary safety until a trial could be held by the city elders. Moses said, “otherwise the avenger of blood might pursue the manslayer in the heat of his anger, and overtake him, because the way is long, and take his life, though he was not deserving of death, since he had not hated him previously” (Deut 19:6). The avenger of bloodגֹּאֵל הַדָּם)  go’el haadam) is considered by some Bible scholars to refer a family member of the deceased who was responsible for executing the killer. Daniel Block believes that “gôʾēl is a technical legal term, denoting a near kinsman responsible for maintaining the integrity of the family and its holdings.”[2] Jack Deere agrees with Block, saying:
"The word translated “avenger of blood” is gō’ēl. A gō’ēl was essentially a “family protector.” He was a “near kinsman” (traditionally understood as the nearest male relative) responsible for redeeming (buying) a relative out of slavery (Lev 25:48–49), for redeeming a relative’s property (Lev 25:26–33), for marrying a relative’s widow and raising up children in the name of the deceased (Ruth 3:13; 4:5–10), and for avenging the death of a relative (Num 35:19–28)."[3]
     However, it could be that the avenger of blood was not necessarily a family member, but as Victor Matthews says, “may have been appointed by the government to serve the needs of both the family and the state by apprehending the accused and then carrying out the sentence if the verdict was murder.”[4] Peter Craigie states:
"The avenger of blood (goʾēl haddām) (v. 6)—the exact meaning of this expression has been the subject of considerable debate. Traditionally, it has been taken to refer to the nearest male kinsman of the deceased, upon whom rested the responsibility for avenging the blood of the dead man. More recently, however, the expression has been interpreted as referring to a representative of the elders of the city in which the death took place; he was therefore an official (the “protector of blood”), not a close relative of the deceased. The meaning of the expression possibly lies somewhere between these two alternatives. The avenger of blood may well be the nearest male kinsman of the deceased; his responsibility, however, was not simply to kill the person responsible for the death (whether manslayer or murderer), but to bring him before the established courts of law in his home town, who would determine the case in the proper manner. If the death was manslaughter, the manslayer would be sent to the city of refuge; the city of refuge was not simply a place of safety, but a place in which the manslayer made atonement for the deed of which he was guilty. If the death was determined to be murder, then the culprit would be executed."[5]
     The avenger of blood could execute the killer, but only after the city officials had properly carried out a trial (see Num 35:16-28), as Moses had previously said, “the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the blood avenger according to these ordinances” (Num 35:24), and this on the basis of two or more witnesses (Num 35:30). And if the manslayer was found innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, he could remain in the city of refuge for safety until the death of the high priest, at which time he could safely return to his own land (Num 35:22-28). But there was a price to be paid by one who took the life of another, even though accidentally, as Warren Wiersbe writes, “If found innocent, the manslayer was allowed to live safely in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. Even though he was innocent, he still paid a price for accidentally killing another human being. If he left the city of refuge, his life was in danger and the elders couldn’t protect him.”[6] Jack Deere affirms, saying, “The cities of refuge taught Israel how important life is to God. Even though a man had killed his neighbor accidentally he still had to give up a large measure of his freedom for an extended period of time.”[7]
     All these factors required the need for multiple cities, as Moses wrote, “Therefore, I command you, saying, ‘You shall set aside three cities for yourself’” (Deut 19:7). These cities, roads, and judicial structures worked together to protect the innocent and condemn the guilty. Moses, thinking ahead, considered the possibility of adding new cities to handle these sorts of cases if the nation expanded its territory. Moses said, “If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, just as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give your fathers– 9 if you carefully observe all this commandment which I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in His ways always—then you shall add three more cities for yourself, besides these three” (Deut 19:8-9). Here, God promised to enlarge the nation’s territory if they pursued righteousness as He was directing them. This directive repeats what Moses had stated before in Deuteronomy 6:5. If their territory expanded, then so must their continued pursuit of righteousness before the Lord. By providing these cities of refuge, it would prevent the avenger of blood, in the heat of the moment, from overtaking and killing the one fleeing to a city of refuge for trial, “So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, and bloodguiltiness be on you” (Deut 19:10). The avenger who killed a manslayer before his trial would have shed “innocent blood” and been guilty of murder himself.
     What follows pertained to the one who intentionally killed another and then tried to flee to a city of refuge for protection. Moses said, “But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, 12 then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die” (Deut 19:11-12). Remember, when a community investigated a case to determine guilt, it was to be “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deut 17:6a).[8] This set a high bar for trials which was intended to protect the innocent and judge the guilty. Once guilt had been established, the murderer was to be executed, and this by the avenger of blood. Moses had previously stated that capital punishment could not occur on the basis of a single witness, saying, “no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness” (Num 35:30b). For emphasis, he repeated this policy again, saying, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deut 19:15). In Israel, as in any society, there was always the possibility that a wicked person would present a false charge against another, thus corrupting and weaponizing the judicial system for evil ends. The Lord had clearly forbidden this, saying, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deut 5:20). The two or three witness policy would mitigate against this sort of corruption. In fact, there was a statute that condemned the false witness to bear the punishment he sought to bring upon another. Moses said, “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing…[and] if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother” (Deut 19:16, 19).
     If a person was found guilty of intentional homicide, Moses said, “You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you” (Deut 19:13). There was a time and place to show pity to others, such as the poor within the community. But there were also times in which citizens were to withhold pity toward others who were guilty of horrible sins. Israel was told to have no pity for the wicked Canaanites (Deut 7:16), nor the family or close friend who enticed them to practice idolatry (Deut 13:6-8), nor those guilty of murder (Deut 19:11-13), nor a malicious witness (Deut 19:18-21), nor a woman who sought to damage the genitals of a man (Deut 25:11-12). Sentiment is healthy, but should never cloud wisdom nor interfere with the execution of justice. By executing God’s judgment upon those guilty of murder, His people would “purge the blood of the innocent from Israel” and God would ensure His blessing “that it may go well” with them (Deut 19:13b; cf. Num 35:33). If Israel would obey this law, it would reflect God’s righteous expectations for them (Deut 16:20), be for their good, and He would bless them for their obedience (Deut 6:24-25).
Present Application
     Biblically, there is a difference between killing and murder. Murder is always wrong (Ex 20:13), since it is born out of sinful hatred (1 John 3:15), and unjustly takes the life of someone who is made in the image of God (Gen 1:27; 9:6). However, there are times when killing is justified and necessary. Under the Mosaic Law, capital punishment was required by God for certain violations.[9] Killing is justified when God commands it. Also, we learn that God Himself has killed (Ex 12:29; 13:15; Lev 10:1-3; Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; 25:38; 2 Ch 13:20; Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor 11:27-30), and will kill again (Rev 19:11-21). God instituted capital punishment with Noah (Gen 9:5-6), perpetuated it under the Mosaic Law (Ex 21:23-25), and continues to delegate the practice to human governments (Rom 13:4; cf., Acts 25:11). Capital punishment is necessary: 1) to exact justice for those who have been innocently murdered because they bear the image of God (Gen 9:6), and 2) to deter acts of evil (Rom 13:4). The biblical teaching is that there is “a time to kill and a time to heal” (Eccl 3:3), “a time for war and a time for peace” (Eccl 3:8). At times God called His people to kill others, whether individuals (1 Sam 15:32-33), or mass groups of people (Ex 32:27-28; 1 Sam 15:1-3). As a theocratic nation, Israel was under divine orders to kill all the wicked Canaanites (Deut 7:1-2; 20:17). David recognized that his military skills were from God when he said, “Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle” (Psa 144:1; cf., Psa 18:34). David was in God’s will when he stood on a field of battle and killed his enemy (1 Sam 17:46-51), and later when he rescued his family and belongings from Amalekites who destroyed and plundered the city of Ziklag (1 Sam 30:1-20). And David was justified in killing Goliath (1 Sam 17:48-51). Biblically, there are occasions when God sovereignly extends grace and mercy toward the guilty who humble themselves and display genuine repentance (2 Sam 11:1-5; 12:13; cf., Psa 32:1-5; Mic 7:18-19; John 8:1-11). Today, in the Church Age, God has delegated capital punishment solely to the governments of this world (Rom 13:1-6; 1 Pet 2:13-14). However, this does not prevent God’s people from practicing self-defense, by lethal or nonlethal means.
     Throughout the Bible we observe God’s people engaging in self-defense to protect themselves as well as others. For example, in the book of Exodus, self-defense was permitted by a homeowner when confronting a thief, but only as the situation warranted. Moses wrote, “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account [i.e., the killer]. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account” (Ex 22:2-3). The distinction seems to be the whether the thief breaks in during daylight hours or at night. If it’s dark, the homeowner cannot see whether his intruder is armed and is therefore justified in killing him. Another example is found in the book of Esther, as we’re told that King Xerxes “granted the Jews who were in each and every city the right to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them, including children and women, and to plunder their spoil” (Est 8:11). These Jewish men had the right to protect themselves, as well as innocent children and women. At one time, Jesus did not require His disciples to carry a sword, but then later told them to purchase one for self-defense (Luke 22:35-36).
     If possible, Christians should “Pursue peace with all men” (Heb 12:14), avoiding trouble and even tolerating a certain amount of abuse. When Saul tried to kill David with a spear, “David fled and escaped that night” (1 Sam 19:10). And when hostile Jews wanted to stone Jesus, we’re told, “Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:59). In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, He told His disciples, “I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matt 5:39). A slap is a nonlethal assault, and the Christian should be willing to tolerate these sorts of abuses without seeking personal revenge. Solomon echoed this when he wrote, “A man’s discretion makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense” (Prov 19:11). The apostle Paul stated, “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom 12:17-19). However, though we tolerate certain abuses according to the will of God, this does not mean lethal force cannot or should not be exercised on other occasions, and this according to the will of God. Remember, at one time Jesus allowed Himself to be beaten and crucified by order of the Roman Governor, Pontus Pilate (John 19:1-16; cf., 1 Pet 2:21-23); however, this same Jesus will return at the Second Coming and suppress rebellion by personally killing many millions of people (Rev 19:11-21; cf. Isa 63:1-6).
     As a nonlethal deterrent the Christian might exercise his legal rights to avoid a harmful or fatal attack. For example, when in Jerusalem, the apostle Paul found himself in a situation where he was about to be flogged by a Roman soldier—which might have killed him or crippled him for life—and he defended himself by exercising his legal rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-29). Paul was not averse to dying if he were actually guilty of a crime deserving of death (Acts 25:11), but if not guilty, he was ready to defend himself by legal means if necessary.
     Additionally, when facing lethal force by an attacker, sometimes a verbal warning is sufficient to neutralize the threat. However, if the waning does not deter, then the believer has the right to escalate and use the necessary force to stop the attacker. For example, when Abner was being pursued by Asahel, Abner said, “Turn aside from following me. Why should I strike you to the ground?” (2 Sam 2:22). However, Asahel refused to heed Abner’s warning and “refused to turn aside; therefore, Abner struck him in the belly with the butt end of the spear, so that the spear came out at his back. And he fell there and died on the spot” (2 Sam 2:23).
     Lastly, there may be times when we have no option of escape, nor the means to defend ourselves, and we should be ready to die a martyr’s death. Luke records such an event when Stephen was stoned to death with no way of escape, and rather than reacting with violence, he committed himself to the Lord. Luke wrote, “They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’ Having said this, he fell asleep” (Acts 7:59-60). Stephen’s words and actions modeled the humility and love Jesus displayed toward His enemies while being crucified (Luke 23:34, 46). In this situation, God did not rescue Stephen from death, but sustained him by means of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:10) and stood in approval of his message and welcomed him as the first Christian martyr into heaven. The record of Stephen’s life was that he was a good man, full of faith, who helped the needy and preached the gospel.
 
[1] If a person were going to intentionally kill another, simpler means would naturally be employed, for the likelihood that one could deal a fatal blow to another in the situation Moses described would be too complex to execute with any degree of certainty. In such a situation the murderer would need to know the exact location and distance of his victim, coordinate the axe head to come off the handle at the correct time of the swing, travel the intended path, then strike the victim in the intended spot, and with sufficient force to be fatal.
[2] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 453.
[3] Jack S. Deere, “Deuteronomy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 297.
[4] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 19:6.
[5] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 266–267.
[6] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 129.
[7] Jack S. Deere, “Deuteronomy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 297.
[8] In the New Testament, the apostle Paul borrowed the rule of two or three witnesses in church policy concerning charges brought against Church leaders, saying, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses” (1 Tim 5:19).
[9] These included: intentional murder (Ex 21:12-14; Deut 19:10-13; cf., Gen 9:6), attacking or cursing a parent (Ex 21:15; Deut 21:18-21), kidnapping (Ex 21:16), habitual rebellion against God (Deut 17:12), worshipping pagan gods (Ex 22:20), blasphemy against God (Lev 24:15-16), working on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-36), being a false prophet and leading Israelites into idolatry (Deut 13:1-5), human sacrifice (Lev 20:2), the practice of divination, sorcery or witchcraft (Ex 22:18; Deut 18:9-14), adultery (Deut 22:22), sex with an animal (Ex 22:19; Lev 20:15-16), incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13), and the rape of an engaged woman (Deut 22:25-27).

Deuteronomy 18:9-22 - God’s Prophet and Not the Occult

     This unit of Scripture is part of a larger section in which Moses addresses four leadership offices God would assign in Israel, namely, judges (Deut 16:18-17:8), priests (Deut 17:9-13; 18:1-8), kings (Deut 17:14-20), and prophets (Deut 18:15-22). These four leadership offices were bound by the Mosaic Law, which legitimized their authority and was the guide for their rulership. In this pericope, Moses warns his people about the spiritual dangers they will face as they enter Canaan and directs them to listen only to God’s voice which He would continue to provide through a prophet of His choosing.
     Moses had previously instructed his people to right-living, saying, “Righteousness, and only righteousness, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you” (Deut 16:20). But Satan has his traps to lead God’s people astray, and God warns His people about these dangers that they might avoid them. For this reason, Moses said, “When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations” (Deut 18:9). God owned the land (Lev 25:23), so He had the right to give it to whomever He pleased. God had previously promised the land to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15:18; 17:7-8), Isaac (Gen 26:3-4), and Jacob (Gen 28:10-14), and He was fulfilling His Word to them by bringing their descendants into it. Once in the land of Canaan, Israel was to avoid being negatively influenced by the pagan cultures around them. God had instructed them on how to live holy lives and it was their responsibility to obey (Deut 11:26-28).
     Moses continued, saying, “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead” (Deut 18:10-11). God had previously warned Israel not to practice child sacrifice (Deut 12:31; cf., Lev 18:21; 20-1-5), and here repeats His message (Deut 18:10a). Some Canaanites sacrificed their children, burning them alive, in order to invoke the favor of a pagan deity, to ascertain knowledge of the future, or to obtain power or wealth. Other prohibited acts of occultism were condemned as well (Deut 18:10b-11), though the terms are not easy to define. Divination (קֶסֶם qesem) sought to determine the future by examining stellar bodies, communing with the dead, or inspecting animal organs. The meaning of one who practices witchcraft (עָנָן anan) is uncertain, but seems to refer to reading cloud formations to determine the future. One who interprets omens (נָחַשׁ nachash) refers to interpreting the movement of birds, rainfall, or the flicker of fire. A sorcerer (כָּשַׁף kashaph) is one who casts spells on others. One who casts a spell (חָבַר chabar) literally means to tie a magic knot (BDB) and refers to curses that bind people. A medium (שָׁאַל shaal) is one who claims to be able to consult the dead, but actually consults demons. A spiritist (יִדְּעֹנִי yiddeoni) is someone who pretends conjure up the dead. Though the exact meaning of these terms is uncertain, they are all condemned by God as detestable, because they lead people away from the Lord and into demonism.
     The appeal of the occult is to have power to live as one pleases, the freedom and ability to manipulate people and circumstances for one’s own selfish purposes, even if it destroys the innocent. But these cultic practices were an affront to God, and it was because of them that He was judging the Canaanites who lived in the land. Moses said, “For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the LORD your God” (Deut 18:12-13). Other detestable practices by the Canaanites included all forms of incest (Lev 18:1-20; 20:10-12, 14, 17, 19-21), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13), sex with animals (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16), and violence toward parents (Lev 20:9).[1] Yet these were the values and practices of the Canaanites, and God was judging them for their sin. Moses said, “For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners” (Deut 18:14a). God prohibited His people from adopting these pagan practices, saying, “but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do so” (Deut 18:14b).
     Naturally, an Israelite might ask how they can know God’s will for them or what the future might hold. God would not leave His people guessing. Moses said, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him” (Deut 18:15). That is, God would raise up a prophet to lead His people, and he would be a fellow Israelite who would arise from among their midst and not be an outsider. Furthermore, he would talk and behave like Moses, always in agreement with Scripture.
     God’s prophet would also serve as a mediator between Him and the people. And this arrangement had been settled by a former agreement at Mount Sinai/Horeb. Moses said, “This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ 17 The LORD said to me, ‘They have spoken well’” (Deut 18:16-17). Remember that the people had become frightened when they heard the Lord speaking directly to them, so they’d requested Moses talk with the Lord directly and then they would listen to Moses, and God agreed to the arrangement (see Deut 5:22-33).
     God would not leave His people without clear direction, saying, “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you” (Deut 18:18a). God’s true prophet would not speak his own words, but the words of God Himself. The Lord said, “I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deut 18:18b). Moses does not provide the mechanics of how God would place His word into their mouths, but simply promises to do so. Similarly, God said to Jeremiah, “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth” (Jer 1:9). And God’s prophet would carry His authority when he spoke. This is why the Lord said, “It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him” (Deut 18:18). Failure to follow God’s prophet was a failure to follow the Lord Himself, and this would come with consequences. Later generations interpreted the “prophet” mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18-19 as referring to an eschatological Messiah, whom some identified as Jesus (John 6:14; 7:40).
     But there would always be false prophets whom Satan would use to mislead God’s people. God said, “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die” (Deut 18:20). Here, the false prophet who presumptuously spoke in the Lord’s name would naturally be difficult to verify (needing to be tested), whereas a prophet who spoke in the name of another god could easily be identified as false. False prophets were guilty of treason and were to be killed for trying to lead God’s people into rebellion, and this because Israel was a theocracy and Yahweh was their King (Isa 33:22; 43:15). Jeremiah dealt with false prophets who were actually speaking “a vision of their own imagination, not from the mouth of the LORD” (Jer 23:16; cf. Jer 14:14; 27:9-10).
     Moses naturally anticipates an interlocutor, saying, “You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’” (Deut 18:21). This assumes an objective way of knowing and not a mystical approach. Moses then answers his questioner, saying, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him” (Deut 18:22; cf. Jer 28:9). Apparently, the prophet would be able to predict a short-term event that everyone could see for themselves and verify. 1 Kings 13:1-5 provides an example of a true prophet who spoke against the worship of false gods in agreement with written revelation (Deut 13:1-5; cf. Ex 20:1-5a), and validated himself by performing an observable short-term prophecy for others to witness (Deut 18:22). Once the short-term prophecy was fulfilled in exact detail, the prophet’s long-term prophecies could be accepted and relied upon as valid. Remember, Jesus adhered to this test, providing short-term prophesies that came to pass (Mark 11:12-14, 19-20), which validated His long-term prophecies which are still pending (Matt 24:3—25:46).
     Remember, Moses had previously spoken about false prophets who claimed to be “a prophet or a dreamer of dreams” (Deut 13:1), and would even perform a miraculous sign or wonder” (Deut 13:2a). Performing a sign or wonder could be used by a true prophet, such as when Moses was empowered by God to turn his staff into a serpent and make his hand leprous (Ex 4:1-9), or by means of the plagues against Pharaoh (Deut 34:10-12). Supernatural signs would grab people’s attention and could be used to persuade them. However, the ability to perform a sign or wonder by itself was not enough to prove the miracle worker was from God. The false prophet revealed his true identity when he directed others to disobey God’s written Word, saying, “Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them” (Deut 13:2b). To call God’s people to serve other gods is in violation of the first commandment, which states, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Deut 5:7), as well as the great commandment which states, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut 6:5). Moses said, “you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut 13:3). Here was a test of allegiance, as those who loved God would remain loyal to Him (Deut 13:4). Only those who know God’s Word and live by it will guard themselves against the deceiving power of false prophets and miracle workers.
Present Application
     Moses had previously instructed his people to right-living, saying, “Righteousness, and only righteousness, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you” (Deut 16:20). Similarly, God wants the same for His church. It is Satan’s objective to get us to turn from the way of the Lord, and he will employ every pressure or pleasure to get us on to a path that leads to destruction.
     Occultism is any religious system of belief and practice that attempts to manipulate the world, circumstances, or people by supernatural means for personal advantage or security. Occultism pursues things mystical or magical, is self-serving and often syncretistic. The Bible accepts the reality of the occult and its demonic powers which are able to have a real impact in the physical world. The ancient world—Egypt, Persia, Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, Rome—was steeped in magic and occult practices. It is noted that Satan and his demons are able to manufacture signs and wonders, albeit in a limited way. When Moses was executing God’s plagues upon Egypt, it is recorded three times “the magicians of Egypt did the same with their secret arts” (Ex 7:10-11; cf., 7:21-22; 8:6-7). Luke records an event in which Paul encountered a slave-girl who had “a spirit of divination” and “was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling” (Acts 16:16). It would seem that demons can influence our world in such a way so as to manipulate economic forces. How this works is unknown. Jesus warned, “false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matt 24:24). And Paul spoke of the coming Antichrist, “whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved” (2 Th 2:9-10). Luke recorded an account of Simon the Magician who had a following of people in Samaria (Acts 8:9-10), and “had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts” (Acts 8:11). And John tells us about the coming future false prophet, who will help the antichrist by performing “great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men” (Rev 13:13). And this false prophet will be very persuasive, as “he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast” (Rev 13:14). Demons even play a role in political activities, for during the Tribulation we learn about “spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty” (Rev 16:14). Again, how this works is unknown, but clearly their ability to influence political rulers is plain. Christians today should test those who speak in the name of the Lord (1 John 4:1-3).
     Satan is a counterfeiter. He replicates God’s true prophets and leaders and empowers them in order to deceive. The occult is one of Satan’s successful diversions to Christianity which has, in many ways, infiltrated the church with its counterfeit spiritual ideologies (e.g., yoga, acupuncture, new age meditation, white magic, labyrinth walking, etc.). The Christian today faces the same occultic pressures as believers did in the past, and God expects holiness now as much as He did then (Eph 1:4; 5:27; 1 Pet 1:15-16). Holiness is a choice we make every moment of every day, always mindful that there are supernatural forces that can harm us if step outside of God’s will and live by the values and practices of Satan’s world-system. The baby believer is the most vulnerable to Satan’s counterfeit spiritual offers because he does not have enough Bible knowledge to recognize spiritual dangers and walk away. Ignorance of Scripture creates a vacuum that Satan will always seek to fill with whatever diverts the Christian away from God, and the occult is one of his many strategies used to that end. Knowing God and walking in the light of Scripture is the only protection the Christian has against the strategies of the devil.
 
[1] Unfortunately, we know from Israel’s history they did not heed God’s warning and adopted these practices. As a result of not obeying God’s Word, the conquerors became the conquered, and Israel was removed from the land by divine judgment. This was avoidable, as Israel could have been blameless before the Lord if they’d maintained a singular focus on Him and walked in His ways.

Why Believers Show No Grace

One would think that grace would flow from grace. That is, those who are shown grace by God would show grace and mercy to others. Paradoxically, this is not always the case. I am amazed at Christians who welcome God’s grace, but show no grace to others. Many are mean-spirited, condescending, harsh, unforgiving, and speak with a critical spirit. This is contrary to the character of God and the teaching of Scripture. When it comes to our sin and unworthiness, the truth of Scripture is, “He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities” (Psa 103:10). God has not treated us as we deserve. In fact, He treats us much better than we deserve; but again, that’s grace. The Lord is a God who loves, forgives, and shows great compassion toward the undeserving and has done so toward us. Yet some believers refuse to give grace to others, who are themselves undeserving. Jonah, for example, was a prophet of God who became angry when the Lord showed grace to Israel’s enemy, the Ninevites, and withheld judgment when they humbled themselves and repented of their sin (Jonah 3:1-10). Jonah became angry at God’s display of grace, saying, “I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity” (Jonah 4:2). The contradiction is that Jonah personally enjoyed God’s grace, but then selfishly wanted God to withhold it from others. The complete set of notes for this study are here: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2022/01/09/a-look-at-grace/ 
Blog: http://thinkingonscripture.com YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/drstevenrcook/videos 
Video Lessons:
God's Sovereignty and Providence: https://youtu.be/xTlzdaYt2xM  The Gospel Explained: https://youtu.be/DA__SdPK5ug  Finding Time for Rest and Recreation: https://youtu.be/l7QoKnK1Yfo  Future Christian Rewards: https://youtu.be/rKjGYcyr4nc  Commitment Love: https://youtu.be/9a_0DtgHnR4                     

A Look at Grace

     The Bible teaches us about the concept of grace. The Hebrew noun חֵן chen appears 69 times and is commonly translated as favor (Gen 19:19; 32:5; 33:8; 34:11; 47:25; Ex 33:12-17). Mounce states, “grace is the moral quality of kindness, displaying a favorable disposition.”[1] The Hebrew verb חָנָן chanan is used 56 times and is commonly translated gracious (Gen 43:29; Ex 22:27; 33:19; 34:6). Yamauchi states, “The verb ḥānan depicts a heartfelt response by someone who has something to give to one who has a need.”[2] God’s loyal or faithful love, חֶסֶד chesed, is used in connection with His demonstrations of grace (Psa 51:1-3). A loving heart tends toward gracious acts.[3]
     The Greek word χάρις charis appears 155 times in the New Testament and most commonly refers to the unmerited favor that one person shows toward an underserving other. It is noteworthy that Paul uses the word 130 times. According to BDAG, grace refers to “that which one grants to another, the action of one who volunteers to do something not otherwise obligatory.”[4] Chafer adds, “Grace means pure un-recompensed kindness and favor. What is done in grace is done graciously. From this exact meaning there can be no departure; otherwise, grace ceases to be grace.”[5] The word χάρις charis is also used to express thanks (1 Cor 15:57; 2 Cor 9:15), or attractiveness (Luke 4:22; Col 4:6). The greatest expression of grace is observed in the love God shows toward underserving sinners for whom He sent His Son to die in their place so they might have eternal life in Christ (John 3:16-19; Rom 5:6-10). Thank God for His wonderful and matchless grace to us!
God is Gracious
     The Bible reveals God is gracious, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6), and, “You, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth” (Psa 86:15). God the Father is described as “the God of all grace” (1 Pet 5:10), who sits upon a “throne of grace” (Heb 4:16), who “gives grace to the afflicted” (Prov 3:34), and provides salvation “by grace” through faith in Jesus (Eph 2:8-9; cf. Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24). Jesus is said to be “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), and the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of grace” (Heb 10:29). Grace is undeserved favor. It is the love, mercy, or kindness that one person freely confers upon another who deserves the opposite (Matt 5:44-45; Rom 11:6; Eph 1:6; 2:1-9; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5-7). Jesus is an example of grace, in that He cared for others, healing and feeding many (Matt 4:24; 14:15-21), even to those who refused to show gratitude (Luke 17:12-19). He acted out of His own goodness, for the benefit of others, with a full knowledge the majority would reject Him and abuse His kindness (John 3:19; 12:37).
Grace is Undeserved
     Grace is given to the helpless and undeserving (e.g., Barabbas; Matt 27:15-26; cf. Rom 5:6-8), and it cannot exist where there is the slightest notion that people can save themselves, or think they deserve God’s blessing. Grace is all that God is free to do for people based on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. I think it was Stott who described grace as God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense. Man-made religion rejects grace and seeks to earn God’s approval through works of the flesh. In grace, God does all the work and unworthy sinners receive all the blessing (Eph 3:7). In man-made religion, people do all the work, and it is falsely supposed that God is pleased with their efforts (Luke 18:9-14). According to Scripture, we are totally unable to save ourselves or others, for “No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him—for the redemption of his soul is costly, and he should cease trying forever” (Psa 49:7-8). Concerning salvation, grace and works are opposite to each other; for “to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due” (Rom 4:4). But if salvation “is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom 11:6). Biblically, we are helpless and ungodly (Rom 5:6), sinners (Rom 5:8), enemies of God (Rom 5:10), and “dead in our transgressions” (Eph 2:5). Furthermore, our own righteousness has no saving value in God’s sight (Isa 64:6; Rom 8:3-4; 10:3-4; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 2:11; 3:5-7). As having any saving merit, Paul regarded his own righteous efforts as filthy dung (Phil 3:8).[6] But God, because of His great mercy and love (Eph 2:4), sent His Son into the world to die in our place and bear the punishment for our sins on the cross (Rom 5:8). Peter wrote, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet 3:18). And John stated, “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
God’s Grace Leads to Righteous Living
     Grace is boundless, and though it covers all our sins (Rom 5:20-21), it does not mean the Christian is free to sin. To draw such a conclusion fails to understand what the Bible teaches about grace, and more importantly about the righteous character of God. Grace never gives believers a license to sin (Rom 6:1-2), but rather instructs us to deny ungodliness, to live righteously, and to look forward to the return of Jesus Christ who is our blessed hope (Tit 2:11-14; cf. Jude 1:4). Grace teaches us to produce good works which God has previously prepared for us (Eph 2:8-10; Tit 3:5-8). As a system of law, the Christian is under the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2) and not the Law of Moses (Rom 6:14; 7:6; Gal 5:1-4). As Christians, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16), Who instructs (John 14:26), and strengthens us to do God’s will (1 Th 4:7-8; Jude 1:20-21). We are directed to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18), to walk by means of the Spirit (Gal 5:16), and to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called” (Eph 4:1). Divine commands are compatible with grace, so long as they do not become a substitute for it. 
Common Grace and Special Grace
     Common grace refers to the undeserved kindness or goodness God extends to everyone, regardless of whether they are righteous or unrighteous, good or evil. God’s common grace is seen in His providing for the necessities of life (i.e., sun, rain, air, food, water, clothing, etc.). This grace depends totally on God and not the attitude or actions of others. Jesus said, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt 5:44-45). Paul said, “In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways [in rebellion]; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:16-17). Here, God’s grace is most obvious, in that He provides the necessities of life and even blesses those who are unsaved and hostile toward Him. His love and open-handedness toward the undeserving springs completely out of the bounty of His own goodness. And this behavior is what God expects of His people, commanding us to love our enemies and pray for those persecute us. This is accomplished by faith and not feelings.
     Special grace is that particular favor God shows to those who have trusted in Christ as their Savior (John 3:16; Eph 2:8-9). Christian theologians have recognized other categories of special grace, but our salvation is the most notable.[7] Paul states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9). Faith is non-meritorious and the only way to receive God’s grace, as Paul wrote, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom 3:28). When we trust in Christ as Savior, accepting that His death, burial, and resurrection forever satisfied God’s righteous demands concerning our sin (1 Cor 15:3-4; 1 John 2:2), then we receive forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7), eternal life (John 10:28), and God’s gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). Furthermore, we are said to be “in Christ” (Rom 8:1; cf. 1 Cor 15:22), having been “rescued us from the domain of darkness” and transferred “to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col 1:13), and blessed “with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3). Once saved, God’s special blessings cannot be forfeited. However, though we are positionally righteous before the Lord, He directs us to surrender our lives to Him (Rom 12:1-2), to learn and live His Word (2 Tim 2:15; Col 3:16), to grow to spiritual maturity (Eph 4:15; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18), and to live righteously as He directs (Tit 2:11-14). But our sanctification requires humility, for “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1 Pet 5:5).
 
 
[1] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 937.
[2] Edwin Yamauchi, “694 חָנַן,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 302.
[3] God’s grace was first revealed after sin entered the world. Though God’s judgment fell upon the first couple (Gen 3:1-19), He also demonstrated grace by promising a future Savior (Gen 3:15), clothing the first sinners (Gen 3:21), and removing them from the garden lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever in a sinful state (Gen 3:22-24). Though grace is a natural feature of God, it is not natural to fallen people. Grace, as a mindset and behavior, must be learned through the regular study of God’s Word and applied by faith; and this takes time.
[4] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1079.
[5] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace (Philadelphia, PA: Sunday School Times Company, 1922), 4.
[6] Paul referred to his own righteous works as dung, which translates the Greek word σκύβαλον skubalon, which means fecal matter. It would appear that Paul used this word for its shock value, in order to contrast human righteousness as a mean of salvation with God’s gift of righteousness (Phil 3:9; cf., Rom 5:17; 2 Cor 5:21).
[7] Biblically, there are other categories of special grace. First is prevenient grace, which refers to the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the one who will believe in Christ for salvation (John 16:8-9). Prevenient grace precedes saving grace. Second, provisional grace, which is the provision of God for His children so they might advance to maturity and fully live the spiritual life (Eph 1:3). Third, growing grace, which is the opportunity to learn and apply biblical truths and principles to the situations of life (2 Pet 3:18). Fourth, cleansing grace, which is the kindness God shows His erring children in forgiving their sin after salvation and restoring fellowship (1 John 1:9). Fifth, enabling grace, which is the provision of God that enables the believer to face adversity (2 Cor 12:9-10). Sixth, dying grace, which is the strength God gives His children as they face death (Psa 23:4). Seventh, the rule of grace, which means grace becomes the operating principle that governs our beliefs and behaviors (Tit 2:11-14; cf. Gal 5:4).

Giving to Support God’s Ministers

It is valid to support God’s ministers who are helping to do His work in the world. Though such giving is not obligatory, it is a barometer of our love for God and appreciation for those who are doing His work and who should be compensated for their labor. God has blessed us by grace, and our giving to support His work is also done by grace, and God will bless those who give, either in this lifetime or in the eternal state. For full article: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2022/01/22/giving-to-support-gods-ministers/
• The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ: https://youtu.be/IGq-WUeXkxQ
• Yahweh’s Holy War: https://youtu.be/MZ_pxmnFk30
• Future Christian Rewards: https://youtu.be/rKjGYcyr4nc
• Great and Least in the Kingdom of Heaven: https://youtu.be/r--oqSW36mc 

Deuteronomy 18:1-8 - The Role of Priests in Ancient Israel

     This unit of Scripture is part of a larger section in which Moses addresses four leadership offices God would assign in Israel, namely, judges (Deut 16:18-17:8), priests (Deut 17:9-13; 18:1-8), kings (Deut 17:14-20), and prophets (Deut 18:15-22). These four leadership offices were bound by the Mosaic Law, which legitimized their authority and was the guide for their rulership. In this pericope, Moses addresses Israel’s responsibilities to care for the Levitical priests, which care was an expression of their righteousness before the Lord (Deut 16:20).
     The word priest translates the Hebrew word כֹּהֵן kohen, which refers to those who drew near to God on behalf of others, usually in sacred matters of prayer and sacrifice. Before the Mosaic Law, few priests are mentioned. Melchizedek functioned as the king/priest of Salem (Gen 14:18-20; cf. Heb 7:1), and Jethro/Ruel (Moses’ father-in-law) as the priest of Midian (Ex 2:16-21; 3:1). Job served as the priest over his household, offering sacrifices for the sins of his family (Job 1:5). Most people worshipped and served God as non-priests. Men such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob built temporary stone altars and worshipped God directly (Gen 8:20-21; Gen 12:7; 13:18; 26:24-25; 35:1-7). Before the Mosaic Law, it appears that sacrifice and worship were personal, simple, did not require special attire, and were not tied to a specific geographic location or facility.
     After Israel was delivered from the bondage of Egypt, God established the Hebrews as a theocratic nation among the Gentile nations of the world. God originally intended the whole nation to be a kingdom of priests, saying, “and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). However, because of the sin of worshipping the golden calf (Ex 32:1-35), God took that privilege from the nation and gave it solely to the tribe of Levi (Num 3:6-10).
     All priests were Levites, but not all Levites were priests. The priests were a minority group within the tribe of Levi. Qualified Levites helped the priests in their duties at the tabernacle/temple (Num 3:6-9; 1 Ch 23:28-32), but only those Levites who descended from Aaron could serve as priests in Israel (Num 3:10). The distinction between priests and Levites continued into the NT (John 1:19; Luke 10:31-32). Levites were not given land (Num 18:20, 23-24), but could live in one of forty-eight cities that were assigned to them (Num 35:7). Their living was derived from the tithe (Num 18:21, 24-28), and they could eat part of the animal sacrifice (Lev 7:31-34), which their family could eat as well (Lev 10:12-15). Even Levites who did not serve at the tabernacle/temple were to be supported for the work they performed within their local communities (Deut 14:28-29; 16:10-11). Apparently, they could also purchase property within the cities where they lived, and then sell that property if they moved (Deut 18:8).
     God required that Levitical priests could not have any physical defects (Lev 21:16-23), and restricted the age from twenty-five to fifty (Num 8:24-25). The Levitical priests originally served at the tabernacle, and later at the temple. Special clothing was required both for the priests and the high priest. Throughout the years of their priestly service, they were required to:
Be holy in their behavior (Ex 19:6)
Teach God’s Law to others (Deut 31:9-13; Ezra 7:10; Mal 2:7)
Offer sacrifices for sin to God (Lev chapters 4, 9, 16)
Help adjudicate legal matters (Deut 17:8-13; 19:16-17; 21:5; 2 Chron 19:8-10)
Preserve the tabernacle and temple (Num 18:1-7)
Perform official duties in the Holy of Holies once a year (Ex 30:6-10; Lev 16)
Inspect persons, animals, and fabrics for cleanness (Lev 1:3; Deu 15:21)
Receive the tithes (Num 18:21, 26; cf. Heb 7:5)
Carry the ark of the covenant (Deut 10:7-8; 31:9)
Guide by means of the Urim and Thummim (Ex 28:30; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8)
Facilitate the festivals of Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Booths (Deut 16:1-17)
Pronounce God’s blessing on the nation (Num 6:22-27).
     Sadly, the practice of priests had degenerated into idolatry during the time of the Judges (Judg 17:5-13; 18:1-31), gave corrupt teaching during the time of Malachi (Mal 2:7-8), and practiced corruption during the time of Christ (Matt 26:59-66).
     Concerning the pericope in Deuteronomy 18:1-8, Moses opens by saying, “The Levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the LORD’S offerings by fire and His portion. 2 They shall have no inheritance among their countrymen; the LORD is their inheritance, as He promised them” (Deut 18:1-2). This is consistent with other statements that the Levites were not given land (Num 18:20), but could live in one of forty-eight cities that were assigned to them (Num 35:7). All Levites derived their income from the tithe (Num 18:21), and they could eat part of the animal sacrifice (Lev 7:31-34), which their family could eat as well (Lev 10:12-15). Even Levites who did not serve at the tabernacle/temple were to be supported for their work within their communities (Deut 14:28-29; 16:10-11).
     Moses continues, saying, “Now this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, either an ox or a sheep, of which they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach. You shall give him the first fruits of your grain, your new wine, and your oil, and the first shearing of your sheep” (Deut 18:3-4). What the priests received as compensation was their “due from the people.” The provisions mentioned here pertain to basic necessities of food (ox, sheep, grain, wine, and oil) and clothing (sheering of sheep). Not only that, but the priests were to receive the best parts of the animal (shoulder, cheeks, stomach), and the “first fruits” of the grain, wine, and oil, as well as the “first sheering” of the sheep. The priests were giving their best to help their fellow Israelites know God’s Word and to live God’s will. If the people followed their spiritual instruction and walked in the ways of the Lord, He would bless them and their land. Naturally, it follows that God’s people would give their best to the priests as an expression of appreciation for their spiritual leadership. Daniel Block wrote:
"The gifts brought to the priests must be choice gifts: the shoulder, jowls, and the stomach of the animals; the first of the processed grain, wine, olive oil; and the first fleeces of their flocks. These expressions remind the Israelites of Yahweh’s abundant provision and reinforce their duty to treat the priests as generously as Yahweh has treated them."[1]
     What the Levites received from the people was largely based on the fact that God had chosen them for special service, as Moses stated, “For the LORD your God has chosen him and his sons from all your tribes, to stand and serve in the name of the LORD forever” (Deut 18:5). The Levites were to serve in the presence of the Lord and receive the offerings presented by their fellow Israelites. In this way, the Levites were at the mercy of their countrymen.
     Moses differentiated between Levites who served within their local communities and those who served as the tabernacle/temple, saying, “Now if a Levite comes from any of your towns throughout Israel where he resides, and comes whenever he desires to the place which the LORD chooses, 7 then he shall serve in the name of the LORD his God, like all his fellow Levites who stand there before the LORD” (Deut 18:6-7). A Levite could serve his entire life within his local community where he resided. However, he also had the option of leaving his residence and moving to the location of the tabernacle/temple and serving there.
     If a Levite desired to serve at the tabernacle/temple, he could expect to receive equal portions of what was brought for worship. Moses said, “They shall eat equal portions, except what they receive from the sale of their fathers’ estates” (Deut 18:8). Remember, the Levites were not given land at the time of the conquest of Canaan (Num 18:20, 23-24); however, they could purchase a house within a city (Lev 25:32-34), as well as pastures where their livestock could graze (Num 35:2-5). If a priest decided to relocate to the central sanctuary, he could “eat equal portions” (Deut 18:8a) of the offerings that were given to the priests there, and also benefit “from the sale of their fathers’ estates” (Deut 18:8b). Warren Wiersbe comments:
"The priests and Levites could purchase land if they wanted to (1 Kings 2:26; Jer 32:7; Acts 4:36–37) and even get an income from the land; but their major interest had to be serving at the sanctuary and helping the people know God and obey His Word. If a Levite sold or leased his property and came to the sanctuary because of his love for the Lord and His house, he must be permitted to serve there and to share in the gifts that the people brought. The fact that he earned money by leasing or selling his land did not change this policy."[2]
     The apostle Paul was thinking of these verses in Deuteronomy when he wrote to the church at Corinth, saying, “Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (1 Cor 9:13-14). Elsewhere he wrote, “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages’” (1 Tim 5:17-18). And, “The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him” (Gal 6:6).
     Though all Christians are priests (Rev 1:6), and the Lord promises to meet all our needs (2 Cor 9:8; Phil 4:19), He has also gifted some men to serve as Pastor-Teachers within the church to help all believers know the Scriptures in order that they might advance to spiritual maturity and be equipped for good works (Eph 4:11-13). Pastor-Teachers are a gifted minority group within the Christian community, and these have their place of service. However, all Christians are ministers who serve the Lord in some capacity. Some Christians have public roles, but most work behind the scenes, sharing the gospel and Scripture with family and friends, praying for others, keeping facilities clean, showing hospitality when gathering together, ministering as faithful spouses, or godly parents who teach their children to serve the Lord, or obedient children who honor their mother and father, or moral citizens of a nation. These too will be recognized and rewarded by the Lord for the faithful work they do. Those believers who learn and live God’s Word can expect to maximize their spiritual influence on others and to be rewarded by Christ when their earthly life is over and they stand before Him for judgment (1 Cor 3:10-15). I pray we all take our ministry roles seriously and humbly submit ourselves to the Lord and walk in faith and love.
 
[1] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 428.
[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 120–121.

The Despair of Atheism and the Hope of Christianity

Either one is a theist or an atheist. Choices have consequences, and which worldview we adopt has far reaching ramifications. The biblical worldview offers value, purpose, and hope. The atheistic worldview—when followed to its logical conclusion—leads to a meaningless and purposeless life that eventuates in despair. The complete article for this lesson can be found at: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2022/...
The Bible as Divine Revelation: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2021/...
YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/v_DuD4x5f0c 

Knowing and Doing the Will of God - Part 4

This lesson is part of a series on knowing and doing the will of God. The study notes for this lecture can be found at: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2021/12/18/knowing-and-doing-the-will-of-god/ 

Knowing and Doing the Will of God - Part 3

This lesson is part of a series on knowing and doing the will of God. The study notes for this lecture can be found at: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2021/12/18/knowing-and-doing-the-will-of-god/ 

Knowing and Doing the Will of God - Part 2

This lesson is part of a series on knowing and doing the will of God. The study notes for this lecture can be found at: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2021/12/18/knowing-and-doing-the-will-of-god/ 

Great and Least in the Kingdom of Heaven - A Life of Discipleship

While discussing eternal rewards in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1-2, 12, 46; 6:1-6, 16-18), Jesus taught there would be varying degrees of placement in the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew 5:19, Jesus said, “whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” In this verse, Jesus talked about two kinds of saved people, both of which will be “in the kingdom of heaven.” This is plainly understood from what Jesus said. The first group will be believers who, after salvation, live a life of disobedience to God, rebelling against His Word, and teaching others to do the same. These disobedient-to-the-Word believers will forfeit eternal rewards and have a low status in heaven. Jesus calls them least, which translates the Greek word ἐλάχιστος elachistos, which refers to being “the lowest in status, least…being considered of very little importance, insignificant.”[1] The second group of believers will be those who live a life of obedience to God, learning and doing His Word, and teaching others to do the same. These obedient-to-the-Word believers will be rewarded by God and be blessed with a high status in heaven. Jesus calls these great, which translates the Greek word μέγας megas, which in this passage refers to being “great in dignity, distinguished, eminent, illustrious.”[2] This gradation of status in heaven is taught elsewhere by Jesus (Matt 11:11; 18:1-4; 20:20-28). To be clear, Jesus is not addressing salvation in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7); rather, He’s addressing the demands of discipleship and rewards. Click here for a complete set of notes: Great and Least in the Kingdom of Heaven - A Life of Discipleship. 
 
Here is the video version. 
 
[1] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 314.
[2] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 1207.

Jeremiah 23:25-40 - True and False Prophets

The central idea of Jeremiah 23:25-40 is that false prophets were giving false messages derived from depraved imaginations and their messages were confusing God’s people and leading them astray from His will. Here is a complete set of study notes: https://thinkingonscripture.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/jeremiah-23_25-40-true-and-false-prophets.pdf 

Knowing and Doing the Will of God - Part 1

This lesson is part of a series on knowing and doing the will of God. The study notes for this lecture can be found at: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2021/12/18/knowing-and-doing-the-will-of-god/ 

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 - The Qualifications for a King in Ancient Israel

     In this pericope, Moses addresses Israel’s future request for a king (Deut 17:14-15), and then specifies the requirements of that king that he may serve as the Lord’s viceregent (Deut 17:16-20).
     God knew subsequent generations of Israelites would desire a king after they’d entered the land of Canaan and He was favorable to the notion, albeit with restrictions. Moses wrote, “When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me” (Deut 17:14). Being omniscient (Psa 139:1-4), God knew Israel would possess the land of Canaan, a land which He owned and controlled (cf. Lev 25:23; cf., Psa 24:1; 89:11). He also knew the Israelites would, in time, desire and request a human king to rule over them. The word king translates the Hebrew word מֶלֶךְ melek, and was used of Israel’s leaders from 1050 to 586 B.C. Having a king was not a problem, for God had promised Abraham—the progenitor of Israel—that he would be the father of many nations, saying, “kings will come forth from you” (Gen 17:6; cf. Gen 17:16; 35:11). Later, God had narrowed the kingly line to the tribe of Judah, saying, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples” (Gen 49:10). The problem was that Israel would desire a king in order to be “like all the nations” around them. God wanted His people to be separate, distinct, and unlike the nations of the world. He said, “I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples” (Lev 20:24b). He called them to be “a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). Daniel Block notes, “In contrast to the offices of judge (Deut 16:18–20; 17:9), priest (Deut 17:9; 18:1–8), and prophet (Deut 18:9–22), the office of king is presented as optional, subject to the desire of the people.”[1]
     God would grant Israel’s desire to have a king, but He set guidelines for the king, guidelines that would complement the nation’s operations and not hinder it from being holy. Moses said, “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman” (Deut 17:15). God would be the One to select their king, and He did via His prophet, as was the case when Samuel anointed Saul (1 Sam 9:15-16; 15:1), and later David (1 Sam 16:1-3, 12-13). Warren Wiersbe writes:
"The king was not to be elected by the people; he was to be chosen by God. Israel’s first king was Saul (1 Sam 9–10), but God never intended Saul to establish a royal dynasty in Israel. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, but Judah was the royal tribe (Gen 49:8–10), and the Messiah would come from Judah. Actually, Saul was given to the people to chasten them because they rejected the Lord (1 Sam 8:7), for God’s greatest judgment is to give His people what they want and let them suffer for it."[2]
     God knew His people well, and He knew they would be tempted to live in conformity to the pagan values of the world around them. In order to keep His people distinct from other nations, and to keep them looking to Him as their God-King, He placed prohibitions on the kings of Israel. These prohibitions included: 1) multiplying horses to strengthen the army, 2) multiplying wives for pleasure and political alliances, and, 3) greatly increasing silver and gold for financial security.
     Starting with the development of the king’s army, God said, “Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never again return that way’” (Deut 17:16). Horses were used in military battles and pulled chariots, which were the tanks of the day. God wanted the king to look to his Lord for deliverance and not rely on military might like the pagan nations did. Egypt was a major source of horses, and God forbid His people from returning to the place where they’d been delivered from captivity.
     Addressing the king’s marital life, God decreed, “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away” (Deut 17:17a). Pagan kings in the ancient world multiplied wives as a means of securing political alliances with neighboring nations and also for sexual pleasure, which was the purpose of the concubine. Human relationships either help or hinder a believer’s walk with God, and there was no closer relationship a king could have than with his wife. God knew if Israel’s kings married women with pagan values and practices, it would only be a matter of time before they turned his heart away from Him. Wives played key roles in the lives of Israel’s kings, either for good (Prov 31:10-12) or bad (1 Ki 21:25; 2 Ki 8:16-18).[3]
     And concerning the king’s treasury, God said, “nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself” (Deut 17:17b). Having wealth is essential to the economic development of a person and nation, and there was nothing wrong with the king having wealth. This prohibition pertained to the pursuit of wealth by human means, which would prove to be a consuming passion that would turn his heart away from the Lord. David said of God, “Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone” (1 Ch 29:12). God may bless His servant with riches; however, David also said, “If riches increase, do not set your heart upon them” (Psa 62:10b). Money was necessary for living, but was also unstable and could easily be lost. The rule was, “Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, cease from your consideration of it. When you set your eyes on it, it is gone. For wealth certainly makes itself wings like an eagle that flies toward the heavens” (Prov 23:4-5; cf., Prov 27:24). The Lord Jesus said, “Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Luke 12:15). Wisdom is found in the one with a temperate heart (Prov 30:7-9), who is content with what the Lord provides (1 Tim 6:8), is concerned with storing up wealth in heaven (Matt 6:19-21), pursues a life of righteousness (Matt 6:33), and if blessed with wealth, uses it for godly purposes (1 Tim 6:17-19). Daniel Block states:
"These prohibitions, then, address three major temptations facing ancient rulers: lust for power, lust for status, and lust for wealth. The text does not prohibit the purchase of horses, or marriage, or the accumulation of some silver and gold. The threefold repetition of “for himself” emphasizes the ban concerning the king’s exploitation of his office for personal gain."[4]
     How was the king to know God’s will for him? He was to know it by reading the book of Deuteronomy, which enriched his thinking and guided his actions. In fact, God required the king to hand write a copy of the book of Deuteronomy, saying, “Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests” (Deut 17:18). The king did not make laws, but received them from God, who was Israel’s divine King (Psa 44:4; 74:12; Isa 43:15), as well as their Legislator and Judge (Isa 33:22). God’s laws were inscripturated and could be studied and applied by the king, or any who desired to know God and live His will (Deut 6:1-3; Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:1-3; Mal 2:7). Writing out a personal copy of the law in the presence of the Levitical priests signified this as a sacred act. It’s possible the Levitical priests, being present, would ensure the copy was wholly accurate. And the king was to carry it with him and read it all the days of his life as a manual for righteous living before his holy God. All of this assumes the integrity of language, in which the author’s original meaning was permanently infused in the words and phrases he wrote, and that language itself served as a reliable vehicle for communication. The end result was that the reader was responsible to know what had been communicated and would be blessed or disciplined based on whether they responded to it positively or negatively. Here, the integrity and authority of the written commands was to be honored by the king who subordinated himself to his God-King.
     After hand writing a copy of the Law, the king was required to keep its content flowing in the stream of his consciousness at all times. This meant he was to carry the Scriptures with him all the time and read it daily. God said, “It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes” (Deut 17:19). Again, the integrity of language is assumed as subsequent kings would have an objective standard by which to guide their thinking and actions.
     The daily reading of God’s Word was also intended to help keep the king humble, “that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (Deut 17:20). The king, like all Israel, was under God’s ultimate authority. But being the king also meant he was to serve as a spiritual leader to God’s people, and this meant he was held to a higher standard, for if the king turned “aside from the commandment, to the right or the left” it meant leading others into sin. But if the king was obedient, both he and his sons would know God’s blessing and the Lord would ensure their continuation in the land. Without question, the most important qualification for the king was to know God’s Word and walk in it. Failure at this point would result in a prideful ruler who would, by default, be governed by the inclinations of his sinful heart and the values and practices of a fallen world that is governed by Satan and his forces.
     The king who followed these directives would serve as the ideal Israelite, not relying on self or resources, but be wholly devoted to God and guided by sacred Scripture. Later, when Samuel was leading Israel, the people came to him with their concerns and asked for a king that they might be “like all the nations” around them (1 Sam 8:4-5). This displeased Samuel greatly (1 Sam 8:6). However, when he prayed about the matter, God told Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them” (1 Sam 8:7). The Lord also said, “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also” (1 Sam 8:8). Samuel warned them about the ways of “the king who would reign over them” and the abuses that would follow (1 Sam 8:9-18). Even with the warning of tyranny and abuses, the people requested a king (1 Sam 8:19-20), and God gave them the desires of their heart by selecting Saul, a Benjamite (1 Sam 9:1-2), who did all the harm God had warned them about.
     Saul started out well, but in a short time He became disobedient to the Lord. Samuel said to Saul, “You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you” (1 Sam 13:13a). As a consequence, God told Saul, “Now your kingdom shall not endure” (1 Sam 13:14a). Samuel informed Saul about the reason he lost his kingship, saying, “because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you” (1 Sam 13:14c). Samuel also informed Saul about his replacement, saying, “The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people” (1 Sa 13:14b). God selected David as Saul’s replacement, and David was “a man loyal to Him” (1 Sam 13:14 CSB). Throughout his life, David sought the Lord and studied His Word (Psa 1:1-2; 25:4-5), walked with God and taught others to do the same, saying, “I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners will be converted to You” (Psa 51:13). David was a writer who composed 73 Psalms which instructed others in righteousness and led them in worship. And when David sinned, he handled his failures in a biblical manner by confession (Psa 32:3-5), and owning the consequences (1 Chron 21:13). Israel’s kings were sometimes compared with David (1 Ki 15:1-5; 2 Ki 16:2; 18:1-3; 22:1-2; 23:3). David also instructed his son, Solomon, to know God’s Word and to walk in it (1 Ki 2:1-3). Though Solomon knew God’s directives for kingship, he broke all three commands as he accumulated horses from Egypt (1 Ki 4:26-28; 10:26-28), wealth by oppression (1 Ki 10:14-25; 12:4), and hundreds of wives and concubines (1 Ki 3:1; 11:1-8). Solomon had great wisdom, but he failed to apply what he knew. All believers have this capacity, which is why James said, “to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin” (Jam 4:17). Being a good leader is always about learning God’s Word and doing Gods will, staying humble, staying faithful, and selflessly seeking the best interests of others.
     It is true that David practiced the sin of polygamy contrary to the Law of Moses. From Scripture we know the names of eight of David’s wives: Michal (1 Sam 18:27), Abigail (1 Sam 25:39-42), Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43), Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24), Maacah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah (2 Sam 3:2-5). He had other wives and concubines that are not named, as Scripture reveals, “David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron” (2 Sam 5:13a). Interestingly, the Bible says nothing negative about David’s practice of polygamy, and though it was a sin according to Scripture, it was apparently tolerated in David’s life, perhaps because it never resulted in his wives leading him into idolatry as it did with his son, Solomon (see 1 Kings 11:1-11).[5]
     In summary, the Mosaic Law placed limitations on the role of the king because of the tendency of those in power to become corrupt, because the proclivity of the human heart is bent toward self-interest rather than God’s interests. However, if the king in Israel learned God’s Word and followed His directives, stayed humble and faithful, he and the nation would know ongoing blessing.
 
[1] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 418.
[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 118.
[3] Mothers have been influencers as well, either for good (Prov 31:1) or bad (2 Chron 22:2-3). There is merit to the statement, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
[4] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 419.
[5] Biblically, some acts of obedience are more important than others, and some acts of sin are more egregious than others. For example, Samuel, told Saul, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam 15:22). Solomon wrote, “To do righteousness and justice is desired by the LORD more than sacrifice” (Pro 21:3). Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees, “you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matt 23:23). Likewise, some sins are worse than others and bring greater judgment. Jesus told His disciples not to be like the Scribes, “who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers”, saying, “These will receive greater condemnation” (Luke 20:47). Concerning the citizens of Chorazin and Bethsaida, Jesus said, “it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you” (Matt 11:22). The apostle John, writing to believers, states, “All unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17a). However, he drew a distinction, saying, “there is a sin that results in death” (1 John 5:16b), and “there is a sin that does not result in death” (1 John 5:17b). These are obvious statements that show some acts of obedience are better than others, and some acts of sin are worse than others.

Where Satan is Attacking in America - Part 5

     God’s Word reveals there’s a divine drama unfolding, and the actors consist of angels and people, both good and bad, who operate in interlocking realms that are invisible and visible, both affecting the other. Failure to grasp this biblical truth limits our ability to understand what is transpiring in the world and what role we play. God desires that we live in reality, and His revelation is the blessing that provides insights we could never know except that He has spoken. What we do with that revelation determines whether we’re a force for good or evil. When believers know and live in God’s Word, it affords them the opportunity to make good choices that can bring blessing to those near them. But the opposite is true, that believers living outside of God’s will can bring suffering to those in their periphery. This was true of Jonah who was in disobedience and others suffered because of it (Jonah 1:11-12). But when Jonah obeyed God, many with positive volition were blessed and God’s judgment upon a nation was stayed (Jonah 3:1-10). As Christians, we should play our part well, sharing the gospel of grace and communicating God’s Word as best we can. But we must always keep in mind we’re not the only actors, and that Satan and his forces are at work, trying to weaken individuals, groups and nations. It is the work of Satan in America that motivates the writing of this article. Full article is here: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2021/09/11/where-satan-is-attacking-in-america/ 

Deuteronomy 17:8-13 - The Role of Judges and Priests in Ancient Israel

     This unit of Scripture is part of a larger section in which Moses addresses four leadership offices God would assign in Israel, namely, judges (Deut 16:18-17:8), priests (Deut 17:9-13; 18:1-8), kings (Deut 17:14-20), and prophets (Deut 18:15-22). These four leadership offices were bound by the Mosaic Law, which legitimized their authority and was the guide for their rulership.
     In this pericope, Moses continues his message to the Israelites who were about to enter the land of Canaan. In addition to judges (שָׁפַט shaphat) who would serve in local communities (Deut 16:18-17:8), Moses introduces a higher court that consisted of Levitical priests and a judge who would serve at a central location, namely the tabernacle or temple. This higher court was intended to handle legal cases that were too difficult for judges in local communities.
     Being a theocracy meant God was their Judge, Lawgiver, and King (Isa 33:22). As King, He was their national leader. As Lawgiver, He was the source of their legislation. As Judge, He would evaluate His people on the basis of their adherence to His laws. Moses himself had previously served as a judge (Ex 18:13-16), and had instructed others in God’s law (Ex 18:17-26). The men Moses selected to serve as judges were to be men of good character, “men who fear God, men of truth, and those who hate dishonest gain” (Ex 18:21a). These men could be selected from any of the tribes in Israel, and their moral integrity was to be the chief quality. Once selected and trained, judges in Israel were to see themselves as subordinate representatives of God, the supreme Judge of Israel. God directed His judges to adhere to His standards, saying, “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you” (Deut 16:20). This meant knowing and judging according to God’s written laws. If a judge in Israel perverted justice, it meant he diminished the character of God. Following the directives in Deuteronomy, King Jehoshaphat (who reigned from 873 to 848 BC) appointed judges in Judah and told them, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD who is with you when you render judgment” (2 Ch 19:6). He also spoke to the priests in Judah and told them to help execute “the judgment of the LORD and to judge disputes among the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (2 Ch 19:8).[1]
     In Israel, the priest (כֹּהֵן kohen) referred to those who drew near to God on behalf of others, usually in sacred matters of prayer and sacrifice. God originally intended the whole nation of Israel to be a kingdom of priests, saying, “and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). However, because of the sin of worshipping the golden calf (Ex 32:1-35), God took that privilege from the nation and confined the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants, and the Levites were to be their assistants (Num 3:1-10; 18:1-7). According to God’s law, priests were to:
Be holy in their behavior (Ex 19:6).
Teach His law to others (Lev 10:11; Deut 33:10).
Preserve the tabernacle and temple (Num 18:1-4).
Officiate duties in the Holy of Holies once a year (Ex 30:6-10; Lev 16).
Inspect people and fabrics for cleanliness (Lev 13-14).
Receive tithes (Num 18:21, 26; cf. Heb 7:5).
Offer sacrifices for sin (Lev chapters 4, 9, 16).
Educate and lead God’s people in religious services (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:1-5, 8).
Help judges decide legal matters (Deut 17:8-13).
     Moses opens this section by addressing the judges in local communities, saying, “If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses” (Deut 17:8). The word court literally means gate (שַׁעַר shaar) and refers to the gate of the city. The city gate was an open area that served as the place where litigants would meet town elders, other citizens, and judges who helped adjudicate crimes or legal matters. Not only where these cases open to the public, but they were also handled relatively quickly (see Ruth 4:1-11). However, Moses assumed there would arise difficult cases in which local judges could not render a ruling, cases of homicide, lawsuit, or assault. When this happened, the judges could take the matter to a higher court.
     The higher court would be at a central location of God’s choosing. At first, this would be the tabernacle and later the temple. Moses directed the local judges, saying, “So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case” (Deut 17:9). It could be that the Levitical priests would select one of their own to serve in a judicial capacity; however, the use of the definite article connected with the word “judge” ( הַשֹּׁפֵטha shaphat – the judge) implies a distinction between them. That is, there would be several priests and a particular judge who resided at the tabernacle/temple. These would serve as the court of last appeal. It’s possible the high priest could discern a divine answer by using the Urim and Thummim (Ex 28:29-30; cf. 1 Sam 28:6); however, it seems more likely the theological and experiential wisdom of the priests and judge would decide the case. Once a verdict came down to the local judges, they were instructed:
     You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the LORD chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you. According to the terms of the law which they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they declare to you, to the right or the left. (Deut 17:10-11)
     The local judges who brought the difficult case were bound to adhere to the decision given to them by the priests and judge at the tabernacle/temple. The verdict was declared from the “place which the LORD” chose, which meant Yahweh was involved in the decision, and it was final. The judges who originally brought the case were not free to execute a sentence either with leniency or severity beyond what had been handed to them. The decision of the court represented God’s will, and to reject or deviate from the court’s decision was to reject or deviate from God’s decision, and such an act would be a crime against the Lord. Moses wrote, “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel” (Deut 17:12). Executing those who rebelled against the Lord’s decision was seen as purging evil from their communities. In this way, the judges would advance God’s directive to administer “justice, and only justice” within their communities (Deut 16:20a). If the rebellious person was put to death, it would create a healthy fear that would prevent others from rejecting the Lord’s authority. Moses said, “Then all the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again” (Deut 17:13). It’s noteworthy that this legal system Moses was providing assumed objective standards of law (that everyone could observe) predicated on the integrity of words (that didn’t change or lose meaning) and the reliability of language as a vehicle of communication from one person or group to another.
     Moses was providing God’s laws, which were a reflection of His righteous character and the basis for their covenantal relationship with Him. Obedience to God’s directives guaranteed blessing and disobedience guaranteed cursing (Deut 11:26-28). Remember, the exodus generation had seen the Lord’s power and experienced His liberation from Egyptian slavery (Ex 13:3), yet, they rebelled against the Lord ten times—disobeying His commands—and were punished by Him (Num 14:22-23). The result of their disobedience was they were not permitted to enter Canaan, but to wander in the wilderness for forty years until they perished (Num 14:28-35). Though they had the promises of God, “the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard” (Heb 4:2). After the exodus generation died, Moses educated their children, restating the Law (Deuteronomy), and these experienced the Lord’s blessings because they responded positively to the godly leadership of Joshua and followed the Lord’s directives. However, after Joshua’s death (Judg 2:8-9), and the death of the generation of Israelites he’d led (Judg 2:10a), we learn, “there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel” (Judg 2:10b). Rather than follow in the ways of the Lord, we learn, “Then the sons of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals, and they forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed themselves down to them; thus they provoked the LORD to anger” (Judg 2:11-12).
 
[1] Jehoshaphat was a relatively good king who followed after the ways of King David. Jehoshaphat started his reign by committing himself to the Lord and destroying the pagan worship centers throughout Judah (2 Ch 17:3-6). He then directed godly men to teach God’s Word throughout the land (2 Ch 17:7-8), and “They taught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; and they went throughout all the cities of Judah and taught among the people” (2 Ch 17:9).

Jeremiah 19:1-15 - Child Sacrifice, Cannibalism, and God‘s Judgment on Judah

     This pericope opens with a directive from the Lord (Thus says the LORD) to Jeremiah who instructed him, saying, “Go and buy a potter’s earthenware jar, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the senior priests” (Jer 19:1). God called His prophet to make a trip to the local potter’s shop in order to purchase a pot. Jeremiah bought a specific kind of jar (בַּקְבֻּק baqbuq) that had a narrow neck and was used for pouring liquid. It’s likely the name of the jar was an onomatopoeia, where the name sounded like the kind of noise it made as the liquid was being poured out. Apparently, Jeremiah’s message was for the leadership of the city, as he was instructed to take some elders and senior priests along with him.
     The Lord instructed Jeremiah, saying, “Then go out to the valley of Ben-hinnom, which is by the entrance of the potsherd gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you” (Jer 19:2). After visiting the potter’s shop, the Lord instructed Jeremiah to head to the valley of Ben-hinnom, which is just south of Jerusalem. It’s likely the potsherd gate was near the potter’s shop and was known as the place where the potter would discard broken vessels that were no longer useful and could not be repaired.
     The content of Jeremiah’s message was then given by the Lord who instructed His prophet, saying, “Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘Behold I am about to bring a calamity upon this place, at which the ears of everyone that hears of it will tingle.’” Hear the word of the Lord was the common phrase spoken by a prophet who spoke for the Lord. This reveals that the message was not from the prophet himself, but was actually God’s Word to the people. The plural reference to the “kings of Judah” likely includes the current leadership as well as the prior dynasty of kings responsible for the deplorable state of affairs in Jeremiah’s day. Jeremiah used God’s proper name, YHWH (יהוה), eight times in this chapter. YHWH (יהוה) was God’s covenant name with Israel and would have reminded the people of their relationship with Him. Jeremiah also used one of God’s titles, referring to Him as “the LORD of hosts”—literally, the LORD of the armies—who was also identified as “the God of Israel.” It should be remembered that Israel was a theocracy and God was their Judge, Lawgiver, and King (see Isa 33:22). They were in a binding contract with Him which included blessings and cursings depending on whether they obeyed or disobeyed (Deut 11:26-28; 28:1-68). Because of Israel’s long history of idolatry and rebellion, they had chosen the path of cursing. Because God has integrity and keeps His Word, He was about to fulfill His promise to judge them based on the agreement of the Mosaic Covenant. God was about to unleash a calamity (רָעָה raah – evil, misery, distress, injury, calamity) upon Judah and Jerusalem, and the result was that “the ears of everyone that hears of it will tingle.” Here was a sensation that one could feel all the way up to one’s ears as the news of terrible calamity was about to be unleashed on the nation. God then explains why this was going to happen. He said:
"Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind." (Jer 19:4-5)
     Jeremiah mentions three reasons for God’s judgment: 1) They had forsaken the Lord, which meant the covenant relationship had been abandoned. Once they had forsaken the Lord and His righteous directives, all forms of evil followed. 2) They had made Jerusalem an alien place where sacrifices were made to idols. 3) Their pagan sacrifices had degenerated to the place where they sacrificed their innocent children to Baal.
     Idolatry had permeated Judahite culture to such an extent that they’d lost their identity as God’s people and were no longer distinct from the pagan cultures around them. Forsaking Yahweh did not lead to atheism, but idolatry, which is a form of thievery, as it gives worship to manmade objects instead of the Lord. Biblically, there is only one God (Isa 45:5-6), and to worship someone or something in His place is to steal the glory due Him (Isa 42:8). Furthermore, idolatry subverts the Lord’s authority and eventuates in social and judicial perversions. Being only a block of wood or stone, idols cannot provide, protect, or guide those who worship them, but neither do they make demands contrary to the proclivity of the fallen human heart. And when there is no check on the human heart to restrain its sinful inclinations, the result is a breakdown in morality that weakens society and leads to harmful behavior, especially toward the righteous, vulnerable, and innocent within a community. Sadly, many churches in America have become superficial and useless, reflecting more the values of our declining culture rather than the holiness God expects of those who are His children and possess His Word.
     According to the Mosaic Law, human sacrifice was regarded as murder (Lev 18:21; Deut 12:31; 18:10), and God prescribed death for those who practiced it (Lev 20:1-2). We know from Scripture that by the end of his life King Solomon turned away from the Lord and worshipped idols, even building places of worship for them (1 Ki 11:4-8). These pagan worship sites were later used by Israelites to sacrifice their children (Jer 32:31-35). It is recorded that two of Israel’s kings, Ahaz and Manasseh, caused their sons to be burned alive to pagan gods (2 Ki 16:1-3; 21:1-6). Apparently, other Israelites were also sacrificing their sons and daughters to idols (Psa 106:34-38; Jer 7:30-31; 19:4-5; 32:31-35; Ezek 16:20-21). Paul tells us that such sacrifices are actually offered to demons (1 Cor 10:20), so it’s no surprise that such sacrifices are hellish. Because Israel became corrupt, God destroyed and expelled them from the land by means of military defeat from their enemies. Child sacrifice is mentioned in the list of sins that brought the nation to destruction (2 Ki 17:6-23).
     When it comes to sacrificing their children, the United States of America outdoes all previous cultures. As of 2021, more than 62 million babies have been aborted in America since Roe v. Wade.[1] Most children are sacrificed for the parent’s self-interest. Of unintended pregnancies in the USA, four in 10 are aborted, which amounts to roughly 3,000 per day.[2] And girls are more likely to be aborted than boys, which translates to a form of gendercide.[3] The killing of innocent human life is a violation of the sixth commandment, which states, “You shall not murder” (Deut 5:17). Today, we don’t have idol centers located in temples or fields where children are sacrificed to a pagan deity; rather, we have clinical offices with well-educated and well-paid hitmen who use their surgical tools and vacuums to murder the innocent. Our government not only legalizes such activity, but uses tax dollars to fund it. We are a nation guilty before a just and holy God, and one wonders how long such evil can continue before the Lord’s judgment falls and renders to us what we deserve? It’s unimaginable to serve a God who cannot or will not judge us if we continue our current course of spiritual and moral decline. Of course, forgiveness is available to those who humble themselves and turn to Christ as their Savior. This is true for any sin, however heinous, even murder.
     We know Judah was unrepentant and that God’s judgment was coming upon them. Jeremiah continued His message from the Lord, saying, “therefore, behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the valley of Slaughter” (Jer 19:6). God would change the name of this valley to fit the crime that was committed there; namely, the slaughter of innocent children. In this way it was to serve as a memorial that recalled Judah’s unfaithfulness to God and the evil that fell upon the children of the nation.
     The leaders of Judah had other plans, but God would overrule them and bring about His judgment. The Lord said, “I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I will give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth” (Jer 19:7). God’s judgment would be terrible and swift. And the punishment would fit the crime, as they would be put to death by the Babylonians whom God would raise up as a weapon against them, and their dead bodies He would give as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the fields. Such language is employed of Jesus at His Second Coming when He puts down rebellion before establishing His kingdom on earth (Rev 19:11-18).
     The city of Jerusalem would be destroyed in such a way that others would see and be amazed. God said, “I will also make this city a desolation and an object of hissing; everyone who passes by it will be astonished and hiss because of all its disasters” (Jer 19:8). God would intentionally make Jerusalem an object lesson for others to see; no doubt, that others might learn to fear the Lord.
     God revealed further judgment in which He would create a distressing situation that would result in Israelites engaging in cannibalism. God said, “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them” (Jer 19:9). God knows the wickedness of the human heart and the perversities that materialize when there is no restraint on sin. One day these Judahites were sacrificing their children to Baal and Molech, and in a short time they would resort to eating them! God had warned of this judgment upon the nation if they turned away from Him and lived sinful lives (Deut 28:53-57; cf. Jer 11:1-8). Later, Jeremiah wrote about how this came to pass during the Babylonian siege (Lam 2:20; 4:10).
     God instructed Jeremiah, saying, “Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you” (Jer 19:10). Here, Jeremiah’s act was itself a Word from the Lord, as it communicated in visual form the mind of God toward Judah and Jerusalem. And after breaking the jar, Jeremiah gave a message, saying, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Just so will I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot again be repaired; and they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place for burial” (Jer 19:11). Just as Jeremiah easily broke the jar, so God would break His people and Jerusalem for their sins. And just as the potter’s jar could not be repaired, and would be thrown into a trash heap, so the Israelites, who were guilty of horrible sins, would be killed and buried in Topheth because there is no other place for their corpses. The Lord continued, saying, “This is how I will treat this place and its inhabitants,” declares the LORD, “so as to make this city like Topheth” (Jer 19:12).
     Jeremiah offered no call to repentance. Rather, the picture is one of judgment that is sudden and final. The clay jar is broken and that’s it. God’s judgment was upon that generation to whom Jeremiah spoke, but His judgment did not render His former promises to the nation obsolete, as future generations could know God’s grace and blessing. Walter Kaiser states:
"The fact that this sin-sickness cannot be “cured” does not mean that there are no future possibilities for a restoration to God’s favor again. This word of judgment is for the present generation; there will be no reversals for those who have failed to respond so frequently to the message currently being delivered, but the promises of God made to the patriarchs and others about his choice of the nation, his gift of the seed that will bring salvation, his gift of the land, and especially his gift of the gospel (that is, that in your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed), are all irrevocable (Rom 11:29)."[4]
     Speaking about the destruction of the city, Jeremiah continued, saying, “The houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah will be defiled like the place Topheth, because of all the houses on whose rooftops they burned sacrifices to all the heavenly host and poured out drink offerings to other gods” (Jer 19:13). The reason for God’s judgment is clear. His people had turned away from Him and been worshiping openly on rooftops, offering sacrifices and drink offerings to astral deities and other gods. Because of their unfaithfulness to the covenant, God would destroy Judah, and Jerusalem would burn (Jer 7:16-20; 32:29-30).
     After giving his object lesson with the clay pot, we learn, “Then Jeremiah came from Topheth, where the LORD had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the LORD’S house and said to all the people” (Jer 19:14). Once in the temple courtyard, Jeremiah said, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I am about to bring on this city and all its towns the entire calamity that I have declared against it, because they have stiffened their necks so as not to heed My words’” (Jer 19:15).
     Because Israel was in a special relationship with God, they were to live righteous lives and not in conformity with the fallen world around them. In this way, they were to have a right attitude and a humble heart that was willing to do God’s will. Instead, the leadership and people stiffened their necks and defied God’s Word and lived sinfully by worshipping idols and sacrificing the innocent. Judah’s prolonged sinfulness had blinded them to their depraved spiritual condition and they were beyond repair by preaching (Jer 25:3) or by prayer (Jer 7:16). Judgment was coming.
     Jeremiah’s message fell on hard hearts and was not received kindly. The next chapter reveals the resistance and hostility Jeremiah received for speaking God’s Word, with the result that he was beaten and placed in stocks by Pashhur, a priest and chief officer in Jerusalem (Jer 20:1-2).
 
[1] Sam Dorman, “An estimated 62 million abortions have occurred since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973”, (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abortions-since-roe-v-wade).
[2] Worldometer, https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/
[3] Abortion in numbers, (https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-centre/abortion-facts/issues/the-numbers).
[4] Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Tiberius Rata, Walking the Ancient Paths: A Commentary on Jeremiah (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 245.

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 - How Judges in Israel were to Investigate and Deal with Idolatry

     This unit of Scripture is part of a larger section in which Moses addresses four leadership offices God would assign in Israel, namely, judges (Deut 16:18-17:8), priests (Deut 17:9-13; 18:1-8), kings (Deut 17:14-20), and prophets (Deut 18:15-22). These four leadership offices were bound by the Mosaic Law, which legitimized their authority and was the guide for their rulership.
     In this pericope, Moses continues his message to the judges in Israel (Deut 16:18-20) and addresses the evil of idolatry that may happen within a community (Deut 17:2-3). If the judges heard about a case of idolatry, they were to launch a thorough investigation (Deut 17:4a), and if the report was true, the man or woman guilty of the evil act was to be put to death by stoning (Deut 17:4b-5). The evidence for the case was based on the eye witness testimony of at least two, or preferably, three persons (Deut 17:6). The persons who testified as eye witnesses were to be the first to cast a stone against the offender, and then others within the community were to join in and execute the offender (Deut 17:7a). In this way, God’s people purged the evil persons from their community, thus removing the existential danger of idolatry (Deut 17:7b).
     All Israel was to remember and honor God as their Ruler, Lawgiver, and Judge (Isa 33:22). The nation was being blessed with the land of Canaan which God had promised to them (Gen 15:18; 17:7-8; 26:3-4; 28:13-14; Ex 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:2). Though God was giving them the land as a blessing (Deut 4:1, 40; 11:31-32; 13:12; 16:20), He retained ownership at all times (Lev 25:23; cf. Deut 10:14; 2 Ch 20:5-7; Psa 24:1; 89:11; Acts 17:24-26). The land of Canaan was theirs by divine promise, but possessing the land was contingent on their faithful obedience to the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant. If Israel repeatedly turned away from God and pursued idols, the Lord would curse them as He’d promised and eventually remove them from the land (Deut 28:63). Concerning the passage under consideration, Moses said:
"If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant, 3 and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, 4 and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly." (Deut 17:2-4a)
     God was going to give towns for His people to live in, but it was their responsibility to live righteously and to maintain the covenant relationship they had with Him. Personal responsibility is here in view. If the judges in the local communities became aware of a person—man or woman—who was committing idolatry, it was their responsibility to investigate the matter. The specific offense mentioned here is that of idolatry, which Moses calls evil (הָרַע ha ra - lit. the evil, referring to idolatry; cf. Judg 2:11; 3:7; 10:6). Idols were generally manmade objects, but could also include stellar bodies such as “the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host” (Deut 17:3b). Idolatry was a crime of the highest order. Peter Craigie writes:
"The crime undermined the very basis on which the covenant community existed and therefore it was to be dealt with very severely, for it threatened the security and life of all Israelites. Thus, the crime, though religious in form, was political in significance. It is analogous to the modern crime of espionage or treason in time of war, for the net effect of both would be to weaken the security of the homeland."[1]
     That this crime was done “in the sight of the LORD your God” implies God’s omniscience (cf., Psa 139:1-4; Matt 10:30). And Moses uses the proper name of God (יהוה) which was the name He used when establishing His covenant with Israel. The word transgressing translates the Hebrew verb עָבַר abar, which means to pass over, go one’s own way, or transgress. Here, the term refers to unfaithful individuals who are walking away from the Lord, going their own way, breaking the contract, and worshipping blocks of wood or stone instead of the One who had liberated them from slavery (Deut 5:6), given them the land of Canaan (Deut 4:1; 9:6), cities, houses, wells and vineyards (Deut 6:10-11), enabled them to produce wealth (Deut 8:18), and promised to bless their labor (Deut 7:13; 11:13-15). The word covenant translates the Hebrew word בְּרִית berith, which means covenant, agreement, or contract. Israel was in a binding relationship with God—a contract—that promised blessing if they obeyed (Deut 28:1-14) and cursing if they disobeyed (Deut 28:15-68; cf. Deut 11:26-28). God was giving His people land and towns, and also written laws which were intended to guide the leadership concerning the formation and practice of good government. It was the leadership’s responsibility—as theocratic administrators in God’s kingdom—to apply His laws within their towns. If a judge heard about someone practicing idolatry, he was to take action and investigate the matter thoroughly (Deut 17:4a). It would be unjust to convict someone on the basis of mere hearsay. A careful investigation would be necessary in order to establish beyond all doubt that this crime had been committed.
     Moses continued, saying, “Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death” (Deut 17:4b-5). If the offense of idolatry was true, the offender—whether man or woman—was to be executed. The reason was idolatry was tantamount to treason because it subverted God’s authority by influencing the Israelites to devote themselves to a manmade idol. If left unaddressed, idolatry would destroy Israel from the inside out. An idol, being only a block of wood or stone, cannot provide, protect, or guide those who worship them. However, part of the attraction of idols is that they make no demands contrary to the proclivity of the fallen human heart. And when there is no check on the human heart to restrain its sinful inclinations, the result is a breakdown in morality that weakens society and leads to harmful behavior, especially toward the righteous, vulnerable, and innocent within a community. The punishment for idolatry was death (Deut 17:5; cf., Deut 13:10), and the participation of others in the community to execute the idolaters showed their understanding of the seriousness of the crime and its potential harm on them all.
     When the judges investigated a case to determine guilt, it was to be “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deut 17:6a). This set a high bar for trials which was intended to protect the innocent and judge the guilty. Moses continued, saying, “he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness” (Deut 17:6b). Moses had previously stated that capital punishment could not occur on the basis of a single witness, saying, “no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness” (Num 35:30b). For emphasis, he repeats this policy later, saying, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deut 19:15).[2] In Israel, as in any society, there was always the possibility that a wicked person would present a false charge against another, thus corrupting and weaponizing the judicial system for evil ends. The Lord had clearly forbidden this, saying, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deut 5:20). The two or three witness policy would mitigate against this sort of corruption. In fact, there was a statute that condemned the false witness to bear the punishment he sought to bring upon another. Moses said, “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing…[and] if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother” (Deut 19:16, 19). These laws, if properly followed, would allow the judicial system to function properly and for Israel to administer justice against idolaters.
      Because sin is contagious, an egregious sin such as idolatry could spread from one family to another, to communities, and eventually infect the whole nation. Failure to follow this instruction would allow the spiritual disease to spread throughout the community, which could bring about the death of the nation.[3] Concerning the execution of the idolater who was determined to be guilty, Moses said, “The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people” (Deut 17:7a). Concerning the involvement of the witnesses in the execution of the offender, Eugene Merrill writes:
"The purpose for this contingency was to preclude personal or private vindictiveness and to assure that what was observed had actually occurred and was not the product of poor sensory perception or an overactive imagination. To forestall a conspiratorial process in which witnesses would collaborate in misrepresenting the truth, the witnesses would themselves be forced to hurl the first stones of execution (v. 7). The gravity of what they were called upon to do would be so great that it was likely that the collusion would unravel either in the judicial process itself or subsequent to the miscarriage of justice."[4]
     The public execution was not to be administered by the leadership, but by the residents of the town. Those who personally witnessed fellow Israelites practicing idolatry were directed be the first to cast a stone. Then, other Israelites were to participate in putting the offender to death, and in this way, Moses said, “So you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deut 17:7b). Here, the purging consisted of the person who practiced idolatry and thus influenced others to evil. Daniel Block states, “Moses’ concern for communal health leaves no room for sentimentality or prejudice. Yahweh’s agenda requires a people united in its devotion to him and rigorous in its preservation of its own character as a holy people (cf. 7:1–6). Eliminating those guilty of capital crimes eradicates the evil from the land and the people.”[5]
     If this law had been faithfully executed by the judges and citizens in Israel, it would have kept idolatry at bay and helped preserve the spiritual and moral purity of the nation. However, the record of Israel’s history—with the exception of a few generations that were faithful to God—is a record of their worship of pagan idols, which at times included human sacrifice (Deut 12:31; 18:10-11; 2 Ki 17:6-23; 21:6; Psa 106:37-38; Jer 7:30-31; 19:4-5; 32:35; Ezek 16:20-21). Because of a breakdown in leadership and jurisprudence, God eventually judged His people because they failed to judge themselves. After hundreds of years of idolatry, God destroyed the ten northern tribes of Israel in 722 B.C. (2 Ki 17:7-23), and the two southern tribes of Judah in 586 B.C. (Jer 25:8-11).
Present Application:
     Idolatry, at its core, it is the selfish sin of substitution in which a person dedicates himself to something or someone lesser than God to direct his life and to meet his wants and needs. God states, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Ex 20:3-4). Biblically, there is only one God (Isa 45:5-6), and to worship someone or something in His place is to steal the glory due Him (Isa 42:8). Idolatry is thievery of the highest order. An idol is merely the work of a craftsman (see Isa 44:9-20). There is no life in it (Psa 115:1-8; Jer 51:17; Hab 2:18-20), nor can it deliver in times of trouble (Isa 46:5-7). And, as stated previously, an idol cannot provide, protect, or guide those who worship it. However, part of the attraction of idols is that they make no demands contrary to the proclivity of the fallen human heart. And there’s the problem. For when God and His Word do not hold the place of preeminence so as to govern the life of a person (concerning personal choices, family, finances, business, etc.), the heart is then free to follow its sinful inclinations. The result is a lifestyle that ultimately frustrates the worshipper, weakens his/her morals, and eventuates in the harm of others for the sake of self-interest.
     Like Israel, Christians are susceptible to idolatry. Writing to Christians in Corinth, Paul said, “Do not be idolaters” (1 Cor 10:7), instructing them to “flee from idolatry” (1 Cor 10:14), revealing that a sacrifice to an idol is really a “sacrifice to demons and not to God” (1 Cor 10:20a). The reason for Paul’s instruction was he did not want the Christians at Corinth “to become sharers in demons” (1 Cor 10:20b). The apostle John, who twice bowed to worship an angel and was rebuked for it (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9), wrote to Christians, saying, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).
     Modern forms of idolatry can include: 1) The actual worship of physical idols in one’s home or pagan temple (Ex 20:3-5; cf. Ex 32:1-4). This form of idolatry is straightforward in its form and function, as one worships the physical representation of pagan deity. Various forms today can include Hinduism, New Age, ancestor worship, astrology, and the occult. 2) Money, the aggressive pursuit and acquisition of which makes us feel secure and powerful (Matt 6:24; 1 Tim 6:6-10). Money can be a blessing, but only when it does not take the place of God. A good test of whether money has taken the place of God is whether we hoard it or use it wisely for God’s purposes and glory (1 Tim 6:17-19), the advancement of Christian ministries, and helping the less fortunate in society (Jam 2:15-16). 3) Humanism, which places mankind at the center of everything and makes us look only to ourselves or others for purpose, meaning, and the solution to our own problems. Atheism, big government (socialism and communism), naturalism (which teaches evolution), and environmentalism are all manifestations of humanism, as we become our own lords to find meaning in life and to solve our own problems without God’s help. Humanism is what predominates in our universities, government, businesses, and social institutions. 4) Pleasure, which elevates physical stimulation above all else. Manifestations of this can include a commitment to drugs, alcohol, sex, food, and entertainment such as music and television with the result that God has no place in the life of that person. When all of life is under God’s control, we will have eliminated our personal idols.
     Idolatry in the Church should be dealt with as a most serious offense. However, the Church is not Israel and we are not under the Mosaic Law as the rule of life (Rom 6:14; Heb 8:13), but under the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2); therefore, how we handle idolaters is different. Israel was required to execute those guilty of idolatry (Deut 17:2-5), but no such command is given to the Church. God’s directive for the Church is to disassociate from the rebellious person who refuses to turn from idolatry in order that we might preserve our walk with God. As Christians, we are to live holy lives, as Peter wrote, “like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘you shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Pet 1:15-16). To be holy means we are set apart from the sinful ways of the world and living in conformity with God’s character and commands. God directs us to manage our relationships with others, for though we live in a fallen world and interact with sinful people, we must be careful who we let into our inner circle of friends, for “bad company corrupt good morals” (1 Cor 15:33; cf. Prov 13:20; 22:24-25). Israel, as a nation, failed to manage their relationships with the surrounding pagan nations, and as a result, they “mingled with the nations and learned their practices, and served their idols, which became a snare to them. They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons” (Psa 106:35-37). The very wise King Solomon failed to manage his relationships and “his wives turned his heart away after other gods” (1 Ki 11:4). The result was, “Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not follow the LORD fully, as David his father had done” (1 Ki 11:5-6). Writing to Christians at Corinth, Paul stated, “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor 5:11; cf., Rom 16:17; 2 Th 3:6). Disassociation was for the purpose of maintaining holiness with the Lord and avoiding a snare that will trap us in sin. Disassociation is never easy, for we love fellow believers and desire friendship with them, praying and reminding them of Scripture when we have opportunity, hoping they will come to their senses and come back into fellowship. However, our walk with God must always take priority, for He is our greatest Friend, and allegiance to Him secures for us all that is strong and good and meaningful in life. And if/when the erring believer turns back to the Lord and resumes his/her walk-in-the-Word, then all will be as it should, and we should extend forgiveness and grace and welcome him/her back into fellowship.
 
[1] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 250.
[2] In the New Testament, the apostle Paul uses this same rule in church policy concerning charges brought against Church leaders, saying, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses” (1 Tim 5:19).
[3] Unfortunately, this is what happened, as idolatry was permitted. A terrible example is seen in Solomon who allowed his wives to influence him to worship foreign gods (1 Ki 11:1-10), and this had a negative impact on the nation of Israel, as it encouraged others to worship idols. Because Israel pursued idols, this brought God’s judgment, which ultimately led to the nation’s destruction (2 Ki 17:6-23).
[4] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 261.
[5] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 407.

Where Satan is Attacking in America - Part 4

     God’s Word reveals there’s a divine drama unfolding, and the actors consist of angels and people, both good and bad, who operate in interlocking realms that are invisible and visible, both affecting the other. Failure to grasp this biblical truth limits our ability to understand what is transpiring in the world and what role we play. God desires that we live in reality, and His revelation is the blessing that provides insights we could never know except that He has spoken. What we do with that revelation determines whether we’re a force for good or evil. When believers know and live in God’s Word, it affords them the opportunity to make good choices that can bring blessing to those near them. But the opposite is true, that believers living outside of God’s will can bring suffering to those in their periphery. This was true of Jonah who was in disobedience and others suffered because of it (Jonah 1:11-12). But when Jonah obeyed God, many with positive volition were blessed and God’s judgment upon a nation was stayed (Jonah 3:1-10). As Christians, we should play our part well, sharing the gospel of grace and communicating God’s Word as best we can. But we must always keep in mind we’re not the only actors, and that Satan and his forces are at work, trying to weaken individuals, groups and nations. It is the work of Satan in America that motivates the writing of this article. Full article is here: https://thinkingonscripture.com/2021/09/11/where-satan-is-attacking-in-america/ 

Deuteronomy 16:18--17:1 - Judges in Israel

     In this pericope, Moses directs Israel to appoint judges and officers for themselves within each town that God was giving them (Deut 16:18). These judges were to judge according God’s righteous standards and not perversely (Deut 16:19-20), especially as it related to worship and sacrifice (Deut 16:21—17:1). This section also begins to name four leadership offices God would assign in Israel, namely, judges (Deut 16:18-17:8), priests (Deut 17:9-13; 18:1-8), kings (Deut 17:14-20), and prophets (Deut 18:15-22). These were all bound by the Mosaic Law, which legitimized their authority and was the guide for their rulership.
     Previously, Moses had tried to serve as the single judge in Israel, but became overwhelmed, fatigued, and burned out. Moses’ wise father-in-law, Jethro, counseled him to appoint qualified men who were wise and of good character to help judge cases. Moses followed Jethro’s advice and trained men in the law of God so they could serve as judges in Israel (Ex 18:13-27).
     Moses knew his people would soon find themselves transitioning from a nomadic existence to that of living in settled communities. This sociological paradigm shift would necessitate a hierarchical structure of elders who could administer just judgments according to God’s Law that was being communicated by Moses. Moses said, “You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment” (Deut 16:18). Moses was giving the people just laws, but it was their responsibility to recognize men of integrity and appoint them (נָתַן nathan) as judges who would officiate legal matters and officers who could carry out their judgments. With this directive, it fell to the elders in each town to appoint judges (שָׁפַט shaphat) who could properly arbitrate legal matters among God’s people, and to select officers (שֹׁטֵר shoter) as subordinates who could carry out their decisions. It’s possible the judges would be selected from among the ruling elders, who were themselves to be wise and discerning men from the community (Deut 1:13). It was the responsibility of the elders to make sure those laws were justly applied within their towns, according to their tribes. More difficult cases could be sent to a higher court (Deut 17:8).
     The laws were given by God, who was their Judge, Lawgiver, and King (Isa 33:22). God was also the One who had liberated them from slavery (Deut 5:6), given them the land of Canaan (Deut 4:1; 9:6), which included cities, houses, wells and vineyards (Deut 6:10-11), enabled them to produce wealth (Deut 8:18), and blessed their labor (Deut 7:13; 11:13-15). Now God was directing them concerning legal matters which, if followed, would have marked them as a righteous people who adhered to just laws. To judge the people with “righteous judgment”- מִשְׁפַּט־צֶדֶק) mishpat-tsedeq) meant their decisions were to conform to the standards set forth in God’s Word. Righteousness (צֶדֶק tsedeq) consisted of the objective standard of written laws Moses was giving the nation, which at that time would have been the Pentateuch. Wiersbe writes:
"The repetition of the word “gates” (16:5, 11, 14, 18; 17:2, 5, 8) indicates that the basic unit of government in Israel was the local town council. It was made up of judges and officers who, with the elders, conducted business at the city gates (Ruth 4:1-12). The judges and officers were probably appointed or elected by the male land-owning citizens of the town, but we aren’t given the details. The word translated “officers” means “writers, secretaries” and refers to the men who kept the official records and genealogies, advised the judges, and carried out their decisions."[1]
     However, living in a fallen world and possessing sinful natures meant there would always be a challenge to following just laws and administering justice. For this reason, Moses said, “You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous” (Deut 16:19). Being partial in a legal case, or taking a bribe from a litigant, are two examples of perverted justice. The judges were not to distort justice, nor be influenced to partiality by the social position of those who stood before them, whether small or great. Each judge was to realize the laws they administered were God’s laws, and that each judge was directly under “the Judge of all the earth” (Gen 18:25). Israel was to remember that “the LORD is our judge, The LORD is our lawgiver, The LORD is our king” (Isa 33:22). The judges in Israel were to realize they were serving as God’s representatives within the community. If a judge perverted justice, it meant he diminished the character and name of God (2 Ch 19:6-7), and the Lord would curse those who perverted justice (Deut 27:25).
     The judges were to be pure in their decisions. For this reason, Moses said, “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you” (Deut 16:20). To emphasize his point, Moses uses a double reference to righteousness (צֶדֶק צֶדֶק tsedeq tsedeq), stressing the need for the judges to pursue God’s standards among God’s people. If they complied with God’s directive, the result would be that God would bless them by allowing them to continue to live in the land. The reality was that God owned the land (Lev 25:23), and He could evict them as a means of punishment if they became corrupt. Historically, we know that because of rampant idolatry, human sacrifice, and other egregious sins, God eventually destroyed the ten northern tribes of Israel in 722 B.C. (2 Ki 17:7-23), and the two southern tribes of Judah in 586 B.C. (Jer 25:8-11).
     What follows in the next few verses appears to be examples of crimes that were deserving of punishment by judges. Moses said, “You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the LORD your God, which you shall make for yourself. You shall not set up for yourself a sacred pillar which the LORD your God hates” (Deut 16:21-22). Because Israel was a theocracy, one could not separate legal from theological matters. In fact, the highest crimes committed were those that perverted the worship of Yahweh by introducing idols within the nation (Deut 5:6-8), which God had previously commanded to be destroyed (Deut 7:5; 12:3). Such an act was tantamount to treason, for it sought to subvert God’s authority with a manmade block of wood or stone.[2] Eugene Merrill writes:
"Moses had just discussed the matter of righteous judgment and the blessing that followed such a policy. Now he provided a hypothetical case or two to illustrate what he meant by untainted jurisprudence and the practices to be followed in achieving it. The violations he adduced could not be more significant, for they strike right at the heart of the covenant relationship. In fact, they challenged the uniqueness of the Lord and the exclusiveness of his worship, on the one hand (16:21–22), thus disobeying the first two commandments; and, on the other hand, they spoke to the sin of cultic impurity in defiance of the third and fourth commandments (17:1). At stake was nothing less than who God is and how he is to be worshiped."[3]
Here, the command was for God’s people not to engage in religious syncretism, in which a pagan Asherah pole would be placed alongside the altar of the Lord and worshipped together. If idols were worshipped alongside Yahweh, it would subvert the Lord’s authority and eventuate in social and judicial perversions. Being only a block of wood or stone, idols cannot protect, provide, or guide those who worship them, but neither do they make demands contrary to the proclivity of the fallen human heart. And when there is no check on the human heart to restrain its sinful inclinations, the result is a breakdown in morality that weakens society and leads to harmful behavior, especially toward the weak and innocent within a community.
     Moses then provided a third example for the judges in Israel, saying, “You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep which has a blemish or any defect, for that is a detestable thing to the LORD your God” (Deut 17:1). Moses had previously provided the directive not to offer a blemished or defective animal as a sacrifice to the Lord (Lev 22:20; Deut 15:21), which here he makes clear would be an afront to God. Such an offering failed to acknowledge God and His goodness as Israel’s Provider. Unfortunately, this is what the Israelites were doing in Malachi’s day (Mal 1:6-9). Peter Craigie writes:
"In relation to 16:21–22, the offering of a blemished sacrifice is similar in result to defiling God’s sanctuary by the importation of things foreign to Israelite worship. It is possible that Canaanite religion did not have such a prescription, and therefore that offering defective animals was a sign of further lapse into a syncretistic form of religion. Any type of syncretism with foreign religion would be an abomination of the Lord your God."[4]
 
[1] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 114.
[2] Gideon, a judge in Israel, had cut down an Asherah pole within his community when directed by the Lord (Judg 6:25-27). Gideon’s action caused a stir in his community and the residents of his town wanted to kill him afterwards (Judg 6:28-30).
[3] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 258–259.
[4] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 249.