If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---
NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS
The Covenant Stipulations, Covenant Making at Shechem, Blessings and Cursings (12.1-29.1).
In this section of Deuteronomy we first have a description of specific requirements that Yahweh laid down for His people. These make up the second part of the covenant stipulations for the covenant expressed in 4.45-29.1 and also for the covenant which makes up the whole book. They are found in chapters 12-26. As we have seen 1.1-4.44 provide the preamble and historical prologue for the overall covenant, followed by the general stipulations in 5-11. There now, therefore, in 12-26 follow the detailed stipulations which complete the main body of the covenant. These also continue the second speech of Moses which began in 5.1.
Overall in this speech Moses is concerned to connect with the people. It is to the people that his words are spoken rather than the priests so that much of the priestly legislation is simply assumed. Indeed it is remarkably absent in Deuteronomy except where it directly touches on the people. Anyone who read Deuteronomy on its own would wonder at the lack of cultic material it contained, and at how much the people were involved. It concentrates on their interests, and not those of the priests and Levites, while acknowledging the responsibility that they had towards both priests and Levites.
And even where the cultic legislation more specifically connects with the people, necessary detail is not given, simply because he was aware that they already had it in writing elsewhere. Their knowledge of it is assumed. Deuteronomy is building on a foundation already laid. In it Moses was more concerned to get over special aspects of the legislation as it was specifically affected by entry into the land, with the interests of the people especially in mind. The suggestion that it was later written in order to bring home a new law connected with the Temple does not fit in with the facts. Without the remainder of the covenant legislation in Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers to back it up, its presentation often does not make sense from a cultic point of view.
This is especially brought home by the fact that when he refers to their approach to God he speaks of it in terms of where they themselves stood or will stand when they do approach Him. They stand not on Sinai but in Horeb. They stand not in the Sanctuary but in ‘the place’, the site of the Sanctuary. That is why he emphasises Horeb, which included the area before the Mount, and not just Sinai itself (which he does not mention). And why he speaks of ‘the place’ which Yahweh chose, which includes where the Tabernacle is sited and where they gather together around the Tabernacle, and not of the Sanctuary itself. He wants them to feel that they have their full part in the whole.
These detailed stipulations in 12-26 will then be followed by the details of the covenant ceremony to take place at the place which Yahweh has chosen at Shechem (chapter 27), followed by blessings and cursings to do with the observance or breach of the covenant (28).
I. INSTRUCTION WITH REGARD TO WORSHIP AND RIGHTNESS BEFORE YAHWEH (12.1-16.17).
In this first group of regulations in 12.1-16.7 emphasis is laid on proper worship and rightness before Yahweh, looked at from the people’s point of view. They include:
But central to it all is the Central Sanctuary, the place where Yahweh sets His name. The place where He meets with His people, and they with Him, and the need for them to be in the right spirit so as to do so joyfully.
Chapter 12 One Place of Worship To Be Chosen By Yahweh Himself - The Central Sanctuary.
The contents of this chapter are crucial. It basically deals with the fact that Israel was to worship at one sanctuary, and one sanctuary only, in contrast with the many altars and the many sanctuaries of the Canaanites. For Yahweh was One and could not be divided up (6.4). As we have seen in the introduction, the only legitimate exception to this was when the Ark left the tabernacle for specific purposes, and thus Yahweh was seen as travelling with it, or when Yahweh actually appeared in a theophany, and was thus clearly there in the place where the offering was offered.
And even more importantly (and constantly emphasised) was that the place in which that sanctuary would be set up was to be one chosen by Yahweh. Unlike the gods of the nations He controlled His own destiny. He was not subject to the will of men or of priests, but brought about all in accordance with His own will, and chose where He would reveal Himself and where He should be officially worshipped. While He was over all He could not be found on every high hill and in every green tree. He could not be so limited. He was not a part of nature but above it.
The concept of ‘the place which He shall choose’ is a magnificent one. All was to be seen as under His sovereign control and when He dwelt among men it was because He chose to do so, and where He chose to do so. And He revealed Himself as He chose to do so. The glory went not to the place but to the One Who chose it.
This dwelling among men did not in any way limit Yahweh. Moses has shown earlier, especially in Egypt and in the wilderness, that He could act where He would, He could speak where He would, and He knew all that happened everywhere even to the extent of knowing people’s minds. Thus men could pray to Him wherever they were and He would hear them. But it stressed that there was only one physical place of approach to Him by men, not through nature but in the place that He chose, where He came to them in His invisible presence, the heavenly coming in contact with the earthly. This emphasised His distinctiveness. We could see this chapter as based on the first commandment, ‘you shall have no other gods before My face’.
That is one reason why Moses here speaks of ‘the place which Yahweh your God will choose’. The term ‘the place (maqom)’ was sanctified by ancient usage for the site at which worship took place. When Abraham himself came to Canaan he set up an altar in ‘the place (maqom) of Shechem’ (12.6). It is surely from this no coincidence that in Deuteronomy, on entering the land, Israel were to gather at Shechem (chapter 27). Later in Genesis 13 Abraham returned to ‘the place (maqom) of the altar which he had made there (at Bethel) at the first’ (13.4). It was in ‘the place (maqom) of which Yahweh had told him’ (the place of Yahweh’s choice) that Abraham prepared to offer Isaac (Genesis 22.3), a ‘place’ which became known as Yahweh yireh, ‘in the Mount of Yahweh it will be provided’ (Genesis 22.14). And Jacob when he had had his first awesome experience of Yahweh could say, ‘Yahweh is in this place (maqom), and I knew it not -- how awesome is this place (maqom)’ (Genesis 28.16-17). Again it was a place that Yahweh had chosen. Compare also 32.2, 30; 35.7, 14. The word ‘place’ (maqom) thus had a firm and sacred connection with patriarchal ‘holy places’ and with treasured experiences of Yahweh and the idea of a place chosen by Yahweh. That was why it was a very suitable term to use in connection with the site of His ‘dwellingplace’ (of His mishkan, often translated ‘Tabernacle’) in the land which was being given to their descendants for their sakes. Like the patriarchs they would have a ‘place’ which Yahweh their God had chosen. The court of the Tabernacle was also regularly described as a holy ‘place’ (Leviticus 6.16, 25 and often).
Thus the people who were fully familiar with these ancient traditions would tie themselves in with their fathers in recognition of the chosen ‘place’ as a holy place of worship. And they would in the light of chapters 11 and 27 see themselves as following in Abraham’s footsteps to ‘the place (maqom) of Shechem’. Yet Moses does not mention Shechem here (although he does later by inference), for here it was not necessarily Shechem that was in mind but ‘the place’ that Yahweh would choose, wherever it might be, which might vary from time to time, and was dependent on His will.
We should note with regard to this that what follows was not just guidance given. Note the constant repetition of ‘you shall’ and ‘you shall not’. It was apodictic law. It was imperative that it be obeyed.
That there was one and one only ‘place’ for worship signified the Oneness of God. We too worship One God, although we do not come through one place but through One Lord Jesus Christ, the One Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2.5), our One Lord. As the sanctuary united Israel, so does Christ today unite His people as one. We may therefore apply the teaching about the one sanctuary to our One Saviour. It is to Him, and to Him alone that we must look, and we all find our unity in His oneness.
This chapter is carefully constructed on a chiastic pattern, (a to e then e to a), stressing its unity:
In ‘a’ and its parallel they must ‘observe to do’ what He commands. In ‘b’ and its parallel all idolatrous places to be destroyed and not sought for - they shall not do so to Yahweh their God. In ‘c’ and its parallel they are to offer whole burnt offerings etc. at the place which Yahweh chooses. In ‘d’ they must eat before Yahweh and not do what is right in their own eyes, and in the parallel they must not eat the blood but must pour it on the ground. In ‘e’ when they inherit they must offer whole burnt offerings and rejoice (and therefore eat) before Yahweh at the place which He will choose, but in the parallel when their borders are enlarged they may eat within their gates if the place which Yahweh has chosen is too far off. In ‘f’ they must ‘take heed’ that they only make offerings at the place which Yahweh chooses, and in the parallel they must ‘take heed’ that they do not forsake the Levites as long as they live. Thus they must centralise their worship and look to the Levites constantly for guidance. In ‘g’ we have a reversal of ‘e’.
They Must Be Obedient to His Covenant and Destroy All That Is Related To Idolatry (12.1-4).
12.1 ‘These are the statutes and the ordinances which you (ye) shall observe to do in the land which Yahweh, the God of your (thy) fathers, has given you (thee) to possess it, all the days that you (ye) live on the earth.’
(Note the combination of ‘ye’ and ‘thee, thy’ in the one virtually indivisible sentence. The ‘ye’ stresses their plurality, the ‘thee’ their oneness as a nation which has been given the land and with a special emphasis on each individual’s need to respond to Yahweh. This will be followed by ‘ye’ in verses 2-12, and ‘thou’ in verses 13-31, with the exception of verse 16 where in MT ‘none of ye’ is required. Verse 32 reverts to ‘ye’. The subtle distinctions continue).
Here Moses introduces the whole section. It continues on from the previous chapter. He had closed off chapter 11 with ‘you (ye) shall observe to do all the statutes and ordinances which I set before you this day’, now he says, ‘these are the statutes and ordinances which you (ye) shall observe to do --’. In pursuance of what had gone before he will now outline the statutes and ordinances, the written regulations and the judgments based on them, which they must ‘observe to do’ in the land which Yahweh, the God of their fathers has given them. Here we again have the main basis of their entry. It is Yahweh’s land. He is giving it to them for the sake of their fathers. They must therefore hear His voice and walk in His ways by their obedience to His statutes and ordinances. Thus will it be theirs (and their children’s) as long as they remain on the earth. Conditional on obedience, possession will be permanent, but it is conditional on obedience. They are entering under the kingly rule of Yahweh in His land, from which all that is evil will be spued out.
For us it is the Kingly Rule of God that is at stake. If we would be permanently under His kingly rule, we must obey Him, for that is what being ‘in His kingdom’ is all about. In fact whenever we read the words ‘the land’ we can for our part read ‘the kingly rule of God’, for that is what the land represented.
Destruction of All Canaanite Sanctuaries And The Setting Up Of The One Sanctuary (12.2-14).
12.2-3 ‘You shall surely destroy (‘destroying you shall destroy’) all the places in which the nations that you will dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains, and on the hills, and under every green tree, and you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and you shall destroy their name out of that place.’
Possession of the land for Yahweh was to be ensured by their total destruction from the land of all traces of the false and depraved religion of the Canaanites. All areas must have their idolatry removed and be put under Yahweh’s control. They must destroy all ‘the places’ (meqomoth - plural of maqom). This is probably a technical term for holy places which later became replaced by ‘high places’ (bamoth ) to distinguish them from Yahweh’s ‘holy place’. There they served their gods, whether on the high mountains (a favourite place for idolatrous worship for they were seen as abodes of the gods), on the hills (ditto), or under every green tree (certain living trees were seen in themselves to possess a kind of divinity and as promoting fertility. This included green trees with thick foliage (Ezekiel 6.13; 20.28), like the vigorous oak which attains a great age (Isaiah 1.29; 57.5), and the poplar or terebinth, which continues green even in the heat of summer (Hosea 4.13)). The threefold description expressed completeness, covering all abodes of the gods.
The altars built up in such places were to be broken down, their pillars (stones set up to represent the divine for worship) were to be smashed to pieces, their Asherah-images burned with fire (these were images or poles made of wood, set up next to the altars and the pillars, evidence for which has been found in many places), their graven images to be cut down, and the very name of the gods was to be destroyed from each of those places. ‘Destroying the name of their gods’ indicated that the places were not to be seen as having any remnants of ‘holiness’ or association with these gods left. Each ‘place’ was to be emptied of significance so that they would become ‘common’ places, not revered by men. It is noteworthy that no instruction is given that they should be ‘defiled’. That idea comes later (2 Kings 23.8, 10, 13). Here the gods were to be removed as nonentities and had not been worshipped by Israel.
The ‘pillars’ (matstseboth) that were to be condemned were those set up that men might worship before them, examples of which have been discovered in a number of Canaanite cities, especially at Hazor. Jacob in contrast set up memorial pillars to Yahweh (Genesis 28.18; 31.13, 45; although gratitude could be expressed at them by pouring a libation over them - 35.14) and Isaiah spoke of a similar memorial pillar being set up on the borders of Egypt when Egypt had begun to seek Yahweh (Isaiah 19.19), both of which were acceptable. We can compare with this the memorial altar in Joshua 22.26-27 on the border of Transjordan. Memorial pillars were common (Genesis 31.45-54; 35.20; Exodus 24.4; Joshua 4.1-9; 24.26-27; 2 Samuel 18.18). But men were not to worship before them.
For us the gods to be rejected may be different ones. Our ‘gods’ are anything that comes between us and God. Let us but find something that hinders our worship of Him and our joyful service for Him and that is our false god that must be destroyed. Beware especially of covetousness, says Paul, for that is idolatry of the worst kind (Colossians 3.5). Those who come under the Kingly Rule of God must avoid all covetousness.
12.4 ‘You shall not do so to Yahweh your God.’
It was to be very different with the worship of Yahweh. That is not how they were to worship Him, at hundreds of different ‘places’ spread throughout the land wherever they desired. He could only be officially worshipped in one ‘place’.
They Must Establish Their Worship At The Place Where He Chooses To Set His Name (12.5-9).
12.5-7 ‘But to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there, even to his habitation, shall you choose to seek, and to there you shall come, and to there you shall bring your whole burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand (literally ‘what is lifted up in the hand’), and your vows, and your freewill-offerings, and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock, and there you shall eat before Yahweh your God, and you shall rejoice in all that you put your hand to, you and your households, in which Yahweh your God has blessed you.’
So rather they were to come to the place which Yahweh ‘chose to put His name there’. All that is basic to Israel was seen as occurring through Yahweh’s choice. And that choice was not just arbitrary. It was the positive act of Yahweh. The idea behind the word is of God’s positive action by which He works on behalf of His people, but which is His doing because it cannot be left to man. In choosing He is exercising His sovereign will and acting for their good. And when they worship Him it must be where He chooses to reveal Himself and to be present. He is not subject to their choices.
Thus they were on their part to choose to worship Him in one place only, ‘the place that He will choose’, the place where He has determined to be present among them and no other, the place where He will put His name. Their choice must be subject to His choice. So their public worship must always be in ‘the place’ which Yahweh their God ‘chooses out of all their tribes to set His name there’, which while His name was set there would become a sacred ‘place’ in a similar way to the patriarchal ‘places’ (Genesis 12.6; 13.4; 22.3, 14; 28.16-17; 32.2, 30; 35.7, 14). The setting of His name there reveals His genuine but invisible presence.
The ‘setting of His name there’ may refer to the placing there of the Ark of the covenant of Yahweh, for the Ark was ‘called by His Name’. Thus in 2 Samuel 6.2 we read of ‘the Ark of God whose name is called by the name of Yahweh of hosts Who dwells between the cherubim’. But if this is so it is because as His throne it declares His invisible presence described in terms of His name. His presence was indicated by His name. Thus it could be said of the angel that He would send before them that ‘My name is in him’ (Exodus 23.21), meaning that Yahweh would go forward in His angel. It signifies that it was where He was to be seen as present. Compare Exodus 20.24, where ‘recording His name’ indicates some special manifestation of His presence. ‘The place which He chose’ would thus be His habitation, His dwellingplace, in the place where in His sovereignty He chose it to be, and to that alone should they choose to seek (compare verse 14).
And in the end the name that was set there was the name whose full significance was revealed to Moses. When Yahweh sent Moses to Israel in order to deliver them He did it by revealing Himself as the ‘I am’ (ehyeh), or more strictly the ‘I will be’, the One Who will be whatever He wants to be, the One Who is always there and present among them (Exodus 3.14). So among them, dwelling in the place that He has chosen, will be the powerful Fulfiller of His own will. And because they are a part of that will they can be confident of His continual support and protection.
‘The place which Yahweh your God shall choose.’ This idea is repeated again and again by Moses in one way or another throughout Deuteronomy, demonstrating the importance of the idea (ch.12 six times; 14.23, 25; 15.20; ch.16 six times; 17.8, 10; 18.6; 23.16; 26.2, 3). Repetition in different ways in speeches is a way of fixing ideas in the memory. Each time the phrase comes up the listener responds. Yahweh is there because He has chosen to be among them, and in the place which He chose, not the place that they chose. Such repetition was also common in ancient literature which was designed to be read out. The hearer loved to be able to think along with the narrative. There was after all for Israel nothing more important than the place that God would choose for His dwellingplace. But its importance lay in the fact that He had chosen it so as to be among them. More important than the place was that Yahweh Himself chose it (compare 17.15 where the choosing was more important than the king. See also 18.5) There He would be among them as Lord and Protector by His own will. For us the place where God has chosen to reveal Himself is in Jesus Christ. He is our sanctuary to which we belong when we become His, built up on Him (Ephesians 2.19-22).
Note the contrast between verse 3, ‘you shall destroy their name out of that place’, with ‘the place which Yahweh your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there’. His name was to replace their name in the land at the place that He chose, not in the places where they were worshipped. Their name (the idea of their presence there and their reputation) was to be destroyed from each ‘place’ where they were, the sacred places to which people went. They were to be no longer worshipped there or remembered. The sacred places must be desacralised. But His name, His very recognised presence in all that He is, was to be established in the one place that He chose, the place where He wanted His people to come, but which was in His own purview. There they would worship Him, there they would recognise His presence, there they would acknowledge His right to His own will, and there they would remember Him, invisible though He was. Even though they could not see Him His name, and therefore His very self, was there, as evidenced by the Ark.
In entering a new land where many gods were worshipped and where there were many sacred places, such a move was in fact the only way to prevent syncretism. God wanted to ensure that none of the sacred places were connected with Him. He would choose His own sacred place, then there would be no ambivalence in their minds. This may be why Moses does not actually mention Shechem. He did not want it thought that this was taking place at ‘the ancient Sanctuary of Shechem’.
‘To the place which Yahweh your God shall choose.’ Choice was central to what Yahweh was as Lord over all. As the Sovereign God He had chosen the people (7.6-7; 14.2; 4.37; 10.15); He had chosen Aaron and his sons (18.5; 21.5); He had chosen the land (Genesis 12.1-3); He would choose any king that they might have in the future (17.15). Now He chose the place where He would dwell, as He would later choose the place where the temple described by Ezekiel would descend on a high mountain well away from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40-48). This last confirms once for all that the place of His choosing was not tied to Jerusalem.
They were well aware that Yahweh had chosen ‘places’ for the patriarchs in which they might worship and honour Him in one place after another (Genesis 22.2-3, 14; 32.30; 35.13-15) but not all at the same time. And it was in similar ‘places’ that Yahweh would record His name (Exodus 20.24). Thus while the word maqom could simply mean any place, it was also one connected with sacred ‘places’, and was a fit one to use because it denoted the site, not just the sanctuary itself. The people as a whole were always more familiar with the site around the Tabernacle than the Tabernacle itself which many only saw at a distance. The whole site was holy, and guarded by the Levites (Numbers 1.53), and was where the people as a whole came to worship Him, in the place where He had set His name.
‘The place which Yahweh your God shall choose’ was never to be seen as a monotonous repetition, or a cryptic puzzle. Rather it was a glorious reality, and an important distinction. It represented Yahweh’s right to choose, and will to choose, and as chosen by Yahweh it was a sacred place while He was there, as had been the place of the burning bush (Exodus 3.4-5) and as had been Mount Sinai (Exodus 19.11-14), which He had also chosen. For now Yahweh had chosen to come and live among His chosen people as One settled in the land, and at any time it would be at one place that He chose at that time, His chosen place set in the chosen land. To limit it to one earthly city, however much it came to be revered, is to miss what lies at the heart of the idea, that Yahweh would be there because He chose to be so, and though history might to some extent affect the place, there would always be a place where He chose to be where men could seek Him. And it would never be at one of the places that men or gods had chosen. It would be the place of His covenant. The future was secure as long as the covenant was maintained. For although all was under His sovereign control, it was required that the people respond to His covenant with them, and to each thing that He had chosen, in obedience, at the place which He chose.
It is interesting that He speaks constantly of ‘the place’ and not of ‘the sanctuary’ or of ‘the dwellingplace’ (Tabernacle). While the ‘dwellingplace’ (Tabernacle) would be the focal point to which they would look and where the priesthood would operate, it was ‘the place’ where it was, its wider site, which was most familiar to the people, the site where they stood when they worshipped. This section of Deuteronomy is very much centred on worship, and being suitable for it. The point was that there would be only one sacred ‘place’ for them to come to. It was the one and only place ‘chosen out of all their tribes’. Compare for the latter phrase 18.5 where we have ‘has chosen him out of all your tribes’ where the reference was to the one and only Priest (18.5). This too then is one, the one and only place. It was there that they must stand to have open dealings with God. They all knew what would be at that place, for the Tabernacle as Yahweh’s dwellingplace had been in their midst for almost forty years. At present it moved from place to place on a short term basis, and yet it was always at the place that God had chosen, for His pillar of cloud indicated where it was to be. One day, however, there would be one sacred place where it would be sited more permanently, and that would then be where they were to come. God would have settled among them ‘permanently’, although not tied to one place, only to ‘the place that He shall choose’ at any time.
Moses was not here speaking to the theologians, or the priests, or even the Levites, he was speaking to the ordinary people. He was not so much giving revelatory teaching (although he was doing that) as much as wanting them to understand and respond to the One Who had chosen them. He was reaching out to their hearts. So the theological words were put to one side and he wanted them to face up to the plain and simple reality. Many would after all rarely enter ‘the sanctuary’ itself. Others would bear that responsibility for them. But all would come to ‘the place’ where it was at some time or another. Had he said sanctuary or Tabernacle they would have been filled with awe but they would not have seen it as personal. Only the chosen could enter the inner sanctuary, and space in the courtyard was limited. But here the offer was of ‘the place’, and that was open to all, men, women and children. Later writers would not have put that on Moses’ lips. Rather the opposite. They had tunnel vision. It was only a Moses, confident in what the people knew, who could speak like this.
It may also be, as some have suggested, that ‘the place’ (maqom) was spoken of in order to connect it with ‘the land’ in which they would dwell, which was the wider ‘place’ (Genesis 13.14). Yahweh had constantly sought out a place (maqom) for them (1.33), and He had brought them to this place (1.31; 9.7; 11.5), and every ‘place’ that the soul of their foot trod on in the land would be theirs (11.24). They would have their place, chosen for them by Him (Exodus 23.20), so also would He choose, within their place, a place for Himself. All was chosen by Him. They were there at His behest. He was there by His own will as Lord over all. Moses also almost certainly had in mind (see above) that when Abraham himself came to Canaan he set up an altar in ‘the place of Shechem’ (12.6), and returned to ‘the place of the altar which he had made there at the first’ in Bethel (13.4). It was in ‘the place of which Yahweh had told him’ that he prepared to offer Isaac (Genesis 22.3), a ‘place’ which became known as Yahweh yireh, ‘in the Mount of Yahweh it will be provided’ (Genesis 22.14 - any connection with Jerusalem is totally speculative). And Jacob could say, ‘Yahweh is in this place, and I knew it not -- how awesome is this place’ (Genesis 28.16-17) of Bethel, the place where Yahweh revealed Himself to him. Compare also 35.7, 14. The word ‘place’ thus had a firm and sacred connection with the original entry into the land, the sacred sites of the patriarchs and with treasured experiences of Yahweh. The court of the tabernacle was also a holy ‘place’ (Leviticus 6.16, 25 and often).
And to that sacred ‘place’ that He had chosen they were to come, and there they were to offer their whole burnt offerings, their sacrifices, their tithes, the heave-offering from their hand, their vows, their freewill offerings, and the firstlings of their herd and of their flock. And there they were to feast before Yahweh and rejoice in all that they put their hand to which Yahweh had blessed, and this included their households with them. And there they would eat before Him.
Note here how the emphasis is on what the people bring. The priests would have their part in it (not emphasised in Deuteronomy) but it was basically the gifts of the people that Yahweh was interested in, and their participation in them before Him.
Eating before Yahweh was an important aspect of worship in which all could participate, and that would not be in the Tabernacle, not even in its courtyard, except for the favoured few (compare Exodus 24.11). It would be at ‘the place’ surrounding the tabernacle, a large area around the Tabernacle. That would be ‘the place’ to which they would come. Provision was there to be made for this feasting out of the overabundance of tithes, that which was specifically set apart to Yahweh, which would be available as a result of the coming prosperity of the land. They would eat of Yahweh’s fare, of the tithes, food set apart as His, which was previously mainly for the consumption of the priests and Levites. As well as the tithes the priests would also eat of the heave offerings and the people of their peace offerings. Both would eat of the firstlings (see verse 17). All was Yahweh’s. (Nothing of the whole burnt offerings was eaten).
As we have seen ‘the place’ is in contrast to the many ‘places’ which were Canaanite sanctuaries. It does not necessarily indicate that in future there will only ever be one permanent place on one single site which could not be changed, which excluded all others (e.g. Shiloh or Jerusalem). The Hebrew definite article is not always too specific. It regularly simply means ‘the one I am talking about’. Thus He might decide to choose one place after another in which to record His name. This is certainly the suggestion in Exodus 20.24, ‘in every place where I record my name I will come to you and I will bless you’. Yahweh did not see Himself as bound to one permanent place for ever. But He would only be there at one place at a time, and it was always to be at the place that He chose (in Ezekiel 40 it was on a high mountain well away from Jerusalem). No place should be set up that He had not chosen. Note also 1 Kings 8.16, ‘Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.’ Yahweh was emphasising that He had not had in mind the choosing of one city in which to establish a permanent sanctuary. His only permanent choice was of the Davidic house from which Christ would come. Indeed when such a seemingly permanent sanctuary was built at Jerusalem He would have to destroy it again and again until He had finished with it for ever, just as He had had to destroy the seemingly permanent sanctuary at Shiloh when it had become corrupted.
Some have therefore considered that Yahweh was to choose a place in each of the twelve tribes. But there is no real evidence for this later, and it is contrary to His clear purpose. When two further places over and above the one place were chosen by Jeroboam he was for ever condemned for it (1 Kings 12.28-33). He was condemned by the ‘man of God’ because of the altar he had set up, not specifically because of the images (1 Kings 13.4).
All this would make sense to them because they would recognise that Moses was emphasising the centrality of the one Central Sanctuary, the Tabernacle (dwellingplace) of Yahweh, which must be established in ‘the place’ which He chose, whether the one place or many places in succession, but none at the same time. And they would personally come to that ‘place’, even though not all would enter the courtyard of the Tabernacle. It was not for them to choose where to worship Him, in the way that the Canaanites did, so that they proliferated worship sites and made Him a local god. It was a matter for Him solely to decide. He would determine the site where the tabernacle would be established at any time, which would then become sacred while it was there and honoured by Him (as Sinai became sacred once He chose to reveal Himself there). By this His oneness and His sovereignty were stressed, and His welcome to ‘the place’ where it was.
Thus where the Tabernacle, with the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, was set up was always to be the decision of Yahweh (determined initially by where the pillar of cloud and fire stopped, and later possibly by Urim and Thummim). Once in the land and at rest the place was to be semi-permanent. Initially it was probably near Shechem (27.1-8), as with Abraham on his first entry into the land. ‘Into the land of Canaan they came, and Abram passed through the land to the ‘place’ of Shechem’ where he built an altar (Genesis 12.6). So all Israel on its arrival in the land would pass through the land to the place of Shechem (chapter 27). But it soon became Shiloh where it remained for over a hundred years (Joshua 18.1, 8-10; 19.51; 21.2; 22.9, 12; Judges 18.31; 1 Samuel 1.3, 9, 24; 2.14; 3.21; 4.3-4, 12; Psalm 78.60; Jeremiah 7.12, 14; 26.6, 9). That is how later writers saw it. Psalm 78.60 speaks of ‘the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent that He placed among men’, while Jeremiah 7.12 speaks of it in the words of Yahweh as ‘My place which was in Shiloh where I set My name at the first’. So it was in Shiloh that Yahweh set His name, and had Israel remained faithful perhaps it would have stayed there ‘for ever’. After the destruction of Shiloh when Yahweh forsook it (Psalm 78.60) it would much later become Jerusalem (1 Kings 11.13), but only in the time of Solomon, and only because Yahweh had forsaken Shiloh. While David placed the Ark in a tent in Jerusalem, the place for the Tabernacle at that time was seemingly Hebron and then Gibeon (2 Chronicles 1.3 - see introduction for further details of this). And in the ideal period it would be on a high mountain away from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40-48), in an unidentified holy place. It was to be at the place that He chose.
Note also in this verse the easy way in which Moses mentions a whole host of ordinances through which they may express their worship which he expects the people to recognise immediately, demonstrating that he expects them to already have a knowledge of the contents of the Law. He is not here bringing a new Law before them but expounding an old one. These ordinances are sevenfold and as such therefore represented in themselves all offerings. The first two are offerings and sacrifices, covering offerings and sacrifices generally; the second two, tithes (Numbers 18.24-28; Leviticus 27.30-33) and heave (or ‘contribution’) offerings (Exodus 29.27-28; Leviticus 7.14, 32; Numbers 18.8, 19), which represent what is set aside for Yahweh, mainly for the sustenance of the priests and Levites, but which once they are abundant they will share with the people in sacred meals (see later where the tithes, although still set aside for Yahweh, are also usable for general worship at the sanctuary and for the poor); the third two are peace offerings, both votive and freewill (Leviticus 7.16; 22.21; 23.38; Numbers 15.3; 29.39), of which part would go to the priests and the remainder would be eaten by the offerer and his household and friends; the final one is the firstlings of their domestic animals which were especially devoted to Yahweh as a result of the deliverance at the Passover. They were holy to Yahweh and were at the disposal of the priests (Exodus 13.2; 13.12; Numbers 18.15, 17).
Note On The Use of The Term ‘The Place’ (maqom).
For using this term Moses had a number of reasons;
Alternatively, if we do not see ‘the place’ as indicating a special place, but rather as deliberately vague terminology, we would argue that it was used so as to take the emphasis away from the place itself and put it on His choice and the One Who chose it, honouring not the place but Yahweh.
12.8-9 ‘You shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatever is right in his own eyes, for you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which Yahweh your God gives you,’
Having described what they are to do in the future he now confirms that it must be in accordance with all the instruction that has previously been given them. Deuteronomy constantly emphasises such previous instruction. Moses accepted that at the present time the ordinances were not being fulfilled exactly as required. The contrast with this verse is the setting up of the Central Sanctuary and its worship as prescribed. ‘Every man doing what is right in his own eyes’ signifies men making their own personal judgments, not necessarily just a free for all. We must not assume that all of the people of God chose to sin when they ‘did what was right in their own eyes’. It simply means that each did what he thought was right, that the Law was not strictly followed. In the difficult conditions of the wilderness, and even here in the plains of Moab, breaches of the strict requirements would be necessary due to unavoidable circumstances, judgments would have to be made on them, and these were seemingly acceptable where carried out from a sincere heart. God was not unreasonable. Being on the march sometimes interfered with their ability to fulfil the Law exactly. For example there would be difficulty in offering the daily offerings, lighting and trimming the lamps and so on. But it was not to be so once the Tabernacle was in a settled place. Then they were to be careful to fulfil all His instruction.
There may, however, also be a reference to various forms of disobedience, with Moses being aware of how often they broke Yahweh’s statutes and ordinances. For that is certainly one inference of the phrase in Judges 17.6; 21.25; compare Proverbs 16.2; 21.2. And he has previously referred to ‘all that you put your hand to’ (verse 7). For a period this was being tolerated. But the expectancy was that when they entered into the rest and inheritance which Yahweh was to give them such spasmodic disobedience would definitely cease. Then they must more perfectly come under His rule.
How like many of us they were. We too think that we can stretch God’s commandments to suit ourselves, and for a time we too get away with it. But we should beware. We should remember those who died in the wilderness did so because they were disobedient. We too may ‘die in the wilderness’.
When They Dwell In The Land Of Their Inheritance They Must Worship At the Place Which Yahweh Their God Chooses (12.10-12).
12.10-11 ‘But when you go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, and he gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety, then it shall come about that to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, to there shall you bring all that I command you: your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave-offering (or ‘contribution offering’) of your hand, and all your choice vows which you vow to Yahweh.’
But once they have crossed over Jordan into the land, and they are finally settled, and have rest from all their enemies round about (seen as fulfilled in Joshua 23.1, still many years hence), so that they dwell in safety, and a safe place has been set up for the Tabernacle, a permanent place in the place where Yahweh their God has chosen to cause His name to dwell there (Jeremiah 7.12; 2 Samuel 7.13; compare Psalm 74.7), then they shall come with their offerings and gifts and tithes and make their vows. Then the statutes and ordinances must be followed precisely. And then their lives must be in tune with His requirements.
This certainly does not mean that during this intermediate period no one brought offerings and gifts to the Tabernacle. The point is rather that not all would be able to, as they would be involved in fighting or defending the places that they had won. It was only when full safety and rest had been achieved that they would therefore be finally fully bound by all the covenant requirements.
Note that strictly speaking it was not the setting up of the Tabernacle in its ‘place’ that was to be delayed until then, but the carrying out of the full ritual and ordinances, especially as they related to the people. Yahweh set His ‘place’ in the land from the very beginning, even though it moved around. But once they were settled in the land and at peace they would be free to worship Him fully in accordance with His requirements.
12.12 ‘And you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God, you, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and the Levite who is within your gates, forasmuch as he has no portion nor inheritance with you.’
And having come into rest it was at this place that all Israel were to rejoice before Yahweh. They would have received the rest and security that He had promised them and their fathers (compare verse 9). The promises would finally have been fulfilled. All would take part in the rejoicing. The idea of ‘rejoicing’ in this way included the partaking of ritual meals in fellowship before Yahweh. At Sinai that had been for the favoured, here it was for all (Exodus 24.11). This included their menservants and their maidservants, and the Levites who sojourned among them and were spread out over the whole of Israel. This description ‘within your gates’, (that is living among them) is never used specifically of ‘the levitical priests’ (the priests the Levites), only of ‘the Levites’. (See 12.18; 14.27; 16.11, 14;18.6; 26.12). While they mainly dwelt in their own cities, some moved about in the cities and towns of Israel, and some bought residences there.
The Levites were seemingly guides as to the Law (33.10; 2 Chronicles 17.8-9; 30.22; 35.3) and presumably supervisors of the tithes, for dealing with one tenth of all produce and births of domestic animals would require close assistance and supervision, and the Levites had been given responsibility to account for one tenth of that tenth to the priests (Numbers 18.26-28). This confirms that they were appointed to look after the collection of the tithes, for they could not do this if they did not supervise them. They had no inheritance (no specific allocation of land to each individual) in the land, because Yahweh (Joshua 13.33) and the tithes (Numbers 18.26) and the priesthood (Joshua 18.7) and the offerings by fire (’ishshah, or possibly ‘gifts’, compare Ugaritic ’usn) were their inheritance (Joshua 13.14). They were therefore looked to with great reverence by the godly, and even by such as Micah (Judges 17.13 - but it should be noted that Micah had been ready to appoint his son as a priest. What he did finally do did not mean that Levites were authorised to be priests, simply that he saw them as a large step up from his son because of their special status).
‘You shall rejoice before Yahweh your God.’ Compare verse 7. This phrase is applied in Leviticus 23.40 to the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles, and was to be the distinctive feature of all the sacrificial meals held by the people at the sanctuary, as is repeatedly affirmed (14.26; 16.11, 14; 26.11; 27.7). Coming to Yahweh, once their sins were forgiven, was normally a matter for rejoicing, for then they celebrated all that Yahweh had given them in their harvests, and they would have special rejoicing because they had rest and security in their land. This aspect of rejoicing is one of the special emphases of Deuteronomy, coming from the fact that it is not a solemn announcing of the Law but a speech to the people describing among other things their worship. As with the use of ‘the place’, so with the response of joyful worship, the idea is concentrated on the response of the ordinary people (‘you and your households - verse 7) in overall worship rather than representing the limitation to sanctuary and ordinances. While the latter were certainly assumed, He did not want the people to see their involvement as just to be in a ritual which could become empty. All were to be involved in joyous worship, and joyous eating before Yahweh in the very place chosen by Yahweh, and this included men and women, menservants and maidservants, and resident aliens, and was to be in ‘the place’ in which the sanctuary was set up.
How great then should be our rejoicing who come to a better Tabernacle, the heavenly Tabernacle, through our Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9.11-12, 10.19-25), to gather with Him at the throne of God, the throne of grace.
The picture here in Deuteronomy goes beyond what turned out to be the actuality. It is a picture of the final goal achieved, it is of the kingly rule of God established and total blessing. It is looking to the time when all are at rest, all are secure, and all look to the One Who dwells among them in His chosen place. In the final analysis it could only be achieved in eternity. For similar idyllic pictures see Isaiah 4.5-6; 11.1-9; Ezekiel 37.23-28).
It found partial fulfilment after the initial conquest, it found partial fulfilment in the time of David, it has found partial fulfilment in a spiritual sense in the true church of Christ under His rule, but its final fulfilment awaits the everlasting kingdom.
Restrictions on Offering Whole Burnt Offerings (12.13-14).
At this point the narrative changes to ‘thou, thee’. What is required is required of the nation as a whole and of each individual.
12.13-14 ‘Take heed to yourself (thyself) that you do not offer your whole burnt offerings in every place that you see, but in the place which Yahweh shall choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your whole burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.’
Again the emphasis comes that they may not make their offerings ‘in every place that you shall see’. It was not for them to choose where they could approach Yahweh and make their offerings to Him. It was to be done in the place that He chose. The ritual was restricted to the place of Yahweh’s choosing. For the ritual was important and therefore all whole burnt offerings, that most central of offerings which summed up all others, were to be offered only at the Central Sanctuary, and nowhere else. They were to ‘take heed’ that this was so. They would all be responsible for any failures. ‘In every place that you see’ might primarily indicate Canaanite sanctuaries. Under no circumstances were whole burnt offerings to be offered there. But it also indicates the fact that Israel could not use their own judgment in deciding on places in which to offer whole burnt offerings, but must only do so at the place that Yahweh Himself decided on. The whole burnt offering was the prime offering. It was totally offered to Yahweh in dedication and worship, and to make atonement, and included the daily offering. It could therefore only be offered at His ‘place’ where His dwellingplace was by His own choice.
‘And there you shall do all that I command you.’ But at the place which was His choice they must ensure the carrying out of all that He commanded. Those commands had been given in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and they would be on tablets stored in the Sanctuary. It was important that they were carried out. They were what He commands them. But Moses does not go into any details about them in Deuteronomy.
‘The place which Yahweh shall choose in one of your tribes.’ This might, if it stood alone, be stretched to translate as ‘in each one of your tribes’, but the history of the Central Sanctuary and the total lack of mention of such sanctuaries and the other use of ‘out of all your tribes’ (verse 5, compare 18.5) is against it. The idea would seem to be of the one place and thus to be set in one of the tribal sections. The choosing might have been done by the Urim and Thummim.
Nothing is more important for all men than that they approach God through the true way. There are many false ways but only one true one. That is what is emphasised here. Today that is through Jesus Christ. As Peter said, ‘There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved’ (Acts 4.12). Today He is the place which God has chosen and it is only through Him that we can offer acceptable worship.
The Slaughter of Animals Other Than As Sacrifices (12.15-16).
But once Israel were established throughout the land and the sanctuary was at some considerable distance from many of the people (as it never was in the wilderness) some provision had to be made for the slaughter of animals for food other than by bringing them to the door of the tabernacle (Leviticus 17.1-9). This is now provided for here.
12.15 ‘Notwithstanding, you (thou) may kill and eat flesh within all your gates, after all the desire of your soul, according to the blessing of Yahweh your God which he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.’
While all ‘offerings and sacrifices’ must be offered at the one sanctuary, clean sacrificial-type animals not slain as offerings and sacrifices, but slaughtered for food, would, once they entered the land (and some were already in their portion of the land), not require to be brought to the Central Sanctuary, as had previously been the case (Leviticus 17.3-9). It was, of course, always recognised that game animals like the gazelle and the hart could be slain and eaten anywhere, as long as the blood was poured away. While being clean beasts they were not sacrificial beasts. But now in the same way all clean animals could be treated in the same way, even sacrificial-type animals, if they were not being offered as an offering or sacrifice. Within their towns as they needed them, they could kill and eat flesh with Yahweh’s given blessing. And both those in a state of ritual cleanness, and those not so, could then eat of them for they had not been offered in the sanctuary. Ritual cleanness mainly affected things connected with the sanctuary.
There is a reminder here for us that there are parts of our lives which, while of concern to God, are not strictly to do with His service. They are more to do with our physical sustenance. Jesus taught us that we were to learn to trust God for these without constantly having to ask Him for them. Our prayers should be concentrated on worthier objects (Matthew 6.7-13, 31- 32). It is babes in Christ who are always asking for things for themselves. The mature Christian leaves his needs with God and concentrates his prayers on extending the kingly rule of God as Jesus taught.
12.16 ‘Only you (ye) shall not eat the blood. You (thou) shall pour it out on the earth as water.’
The only exception to this permission to eat the flesh of animals was that they were not to eat the blood. That represented the animal’s life and belonged solely to Yahweh, the Giver of life. Through this prohibition His continual sovereignty over all things was revealed (as it was with the tree of knowing good and evil). This exception of the blood is recognised throughout Scripture (see especially Leviticus 17.10-14) and covers all slain animals that were eaten. Not eating the blood acknowledged Yahweh’s sovereignty, and that all life belonged to Him. The pouring out of the blood was also probably to be seen as an act of worship. See on verse 24.
The Law of Tithes, Firstlings, Votive and Freewill Offerings, and Heave-offerings (12.17-19).
But this exception of being allowed to eat in their own cities in the case of animals was not to apply to tithes, firstlings, peace offerings or heave-offerings (contribution offerings). These all had to be brought to the sanctuary to be offered before Yahweh, because they were distinctively His. They were set apart for Him. The first thing to recognise here is that Moses expects his listeners to know precisely what these ordinances refer to and to accept it without quibble. No explanations are yet given. And this is in fact because all had earlier been revealed through him as things that were to be offered to Yahweh and belonged to Him (in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). They were holy to Him. Thus they may only be used in accordance with His dispensing. They were as follows:
The principle of tithing had already been declared in Leviticus 27.30-33 and Numbers 18.21-24. There the principle was that one tenth of all produce, both animal and vegetable, was Yahweh’s and holy to Him. That was the basic principle. But Numbers 18.21-24 adds that it was to go to the Levites. Thus while they were in the wilderness it was all passed over to the Levites for their use, it was their inheritance (Numbers 18.21), and they were responsible to ensure that the priests received one tenth of what they received, a tithe of the tithe (Numbers 18.23-31). This was reasonable. Grain, vegetable produce and vintage productivity would be limited in the wilderness and there were many Levites, and at this stage they had no levitical cities with their productive land. The tithe therefore had as far as possible to be sufficient, along with the manna, to satisfy their ample numbers, and the priests’ households had to be catered for as well. There would be little or no surplus of the one tenth of grain, vegetables and vintage. All would be needed for their use.
Thus when Moses spoke of tithes here he knew that the principle was ingrained within them that the tithe was the inheritance of the Levites. And for much of the time in the wilderness vegetable and grain tithes would be small, and sometimes non-existent. Indeed all Israel regularly depended on the manna, both people and Levites. Thus the Levites’ tenth of these would all usually be required for their consumption.
But the introduction in Moses’ speech of the fact that part of these tithes which had been sanctified to Yahweh could now be partaken of by those who offered them, as though it were regular practise, suggests that even in the wilderness the quantity of the tithes had proved too much for the Levites so that they had regularly arranged for the offerers to join them in their ritual meals before Yahweh at the different feasts. This excess would probably mainly have been of the one tenth of the animals, which would have been continually bearing, and this had seemingly become the custom. For there was no restriction placed on what the Levites did with their tithes at the sanctuary. In conditions like the wilderness, where all shared the hardships, camaraderie would be at its highest. Sharing their good things during feasts would be seen as a part of life. But because the tithes were sacred to Yahweh that could only be at the Sanctuary, and only the Levites could partake of tithes away from the Sanctuary, (apart from the three year tithe to be described later).
However, attention now turned to when they entered the land. Once there the produce would increase hugely and as Yahweh blessed them so the tenth portion would also expand hugely, especially the vegetable and grain tithes. There would be far more than the Levites, who would also possess, as a group, places in many cities (levitical cities), and the land around them with what they could produce, could possibly require. So the practise of sharing, which had grown up, was now approved of, with the condition that it all be eaten at the sanctuary because it was Yahweh’s. The principle was not to change. The tenth portion was still Yahweh’s and holy to Him, and one tenth of that had to go to the priests. But now part of the tithe could also be partaken of by the offerer and his household in a ritual meal at the sanctuary before Yahweh as an act of worship (14.22-27), as something being received from Yahweh. Yahweh was to be seen as dispensing His gracious gifts to them at His holy place out of what they had given Him.
There would still necessarily be large amounts over, which, it would be understood, were then to go to the Levites, whose interests had to be protected (they were not to be forsaken). The amount of produce in Israel would in good years be huge, and just one tenth would be huge. And it is probable that all these arrangements for the tenth would be watched over by the Levites, for they had the responsibility of ensuring that the priests received their tenth of the tenth. The tithe of the whole year was far more than could be eaten at ritual meals even of the most generous proportions, thus the Levites would still be well provided for, and it should be noted that the Levites, as Yahweh’s inheritance, could partake of their tithe anywhere (Numbers 18.31), ‘you shall eat it in every place’.
The management and checking of the tithes, and the giving of advice in respect to them, together with the apportioning of a tenth to the priests, would be a huge task. Many of the people would be innumerate, and not well acquainted with the Law, and would find that they needed help and guidance. The oversight of this was clearly the responsibility of the Levites.
It is noteworthy that of the tithes only the vegetable and grain tithes are mentioned here. This is probably because the meat element of the ritual meals would be provided for out of the firstlings, the votive offerings and the freewill offerings. The general tithe of domestic animals born would thus not be required. But it still belonged to Yahweh. If this be the case that would therefore all go to the Levites’ households, with the priests’ households receiving their portion. It may be that many of the animals would be kept alive to provide animals to graze on the joint land owned by the Levites/priests around their cities, and to provide them with milk, etc. Leviticus 13.32, which speaks of ‘whatever passes under the rod’, may be seen as confirming that these tithes were supervised, presumably by the Levites.
However, a new principle is also later described in Deuteronomy 14.28-29; 26.12-14 for every third year. In that year the whole tithe, (still sanctified to Yahweh), will be given by the people to the Levites and stored in the people’s cities to be used to assist the poor and needy, the resident alien, and the Levites themselves. Indeed the offerers were to take pride in the fact before Yahweh that they had handed it over as commanded (26.13). This would be stored and dispensed over the three years that followed, presumably by the Levites. (Someone would need to be responsible for this huge and important task throughout the country). The inclusion of the Levites here as also possible recipients, in spite of their receiving their parts of the regular tithes in the other two years, would cater for bad periods when there had been shortages. Unlike the offerers they were not to be excluded in the third year.
(This storing in their cities may simply refer to the whole of the tithe which was not partaken of in the ritual meals, otherwise there would be no ritual meals that year, thus by it making provision for the poor. But more probably it means that in that year the people were to provide for their ritual meals out of their own share of their produce as an act of kindness to the poor and needy. We can take it that this third year tithe did not have to be brought to the sanctuary first, for it was to be available in its original form, not turned into silver - contrast 14.25).
So the law of tithing, the setting apart of one tenth to Yahweh, has now expanded so that the tithe was used as follows:
3) Votive offerings and freewill offerings. These were peace (wellbeing) offerings, the former offered in respect of vows, the latter simply a freewill offering to Yahweh. They were to be slaughtered in the court of the Sanctuary, the blood applied to the altar, a part offered on the altar (including the fat and vital parts), portions given to the priests, and the remainder to be eaten by the offerer and his household and friends (compare Leviticus 7.11-21).
4) The heave offering of their hand (‘the offering that is lifted up in the hand’). For this compare 18.4; 26.2; Exodus 29.27-28; Leviticus 7.14, 32; 10.14-15; Numbers 5.9; 6.20; 15.19-21; 18.8-29; 31.29, 41. The heave offering (or ‘contribution’ offering) was a part of an offering which was set apart for the priests. It was possibly presented before Yahweh by being lifted up before Him and was for the consumption of the priests and their families in a clean place. The heave/contribution offering of a peace offering comprised the thigh, which went to the officiating priest (Leviticus 7.30-34). (The priests also received the shoulder as a ‘wave offering’). A further heave/contribution offering was of unleavened cakes mingled with oil and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil of fine flour soaked. This was taken from among the offerings of the same which were made with the peace offerings, and was again for the priests (Leviticus 7.14). Once they were in the land a heave/contribution offering was also to be made of the first of the dough (Numbers 15.19-21). A heave/contribution offering could further be made for the priests of a proportion of spoils gained in battle (Numbers 31.29, 41). These heave offerings (or ‘contributions’) were specifically for the priests.
12.17-18 ‘You (thou) may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your new wine, or of your oil, or the firstlings of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your freewill-offerings, nor the heave-offering of your hand, but you shall eat them before Yahweh your God in the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man-servant, and your maid-servant, and the Levite who is within your gates, and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God in all that you put your hand to.’
All these offerings were holy to Yahweh. They belonged to Him. Thus they could only be eaten at the appointed place, the site in which the Tabernacle was situated in the presence of Yahweh (‘before Yahweh’). These words were spoken to all Israel. It is not saying that all Israel could eat all that is mentioned. ‘All Israel’ included overall the priests and the Levites. The point here is thus not to say that all could eat of any of these offerings, but that whoever had the right to eat of them should only do so at the place that Yahweh had chosen to set His name and dwelling there and in His presence. They were not to be eaten in their own cities and towns (‘within their gates’). The details of these offerings are given above. All are to participate in one or the other, including servants and bondspeople, and Levites. Care was to be taken to ensure that the Levites did not go short. This command was to the people as a whole. The Levite was permitted to eat the tithe anywhere.
The point for us from all this is that we too should have certain things that we do which are sacred to Yahweh and which we must seek His presence about. The first is our prayer life, for thereby we make our offering of praise and thanksgiving (Hebrews 13.15). The next is the giving of our lives as we present our bodies to Him as a living sacrifice to be transformed to do His will (Romans 12.1-2). The next is our Christian giving, our ‘tithes’, for by how we give we demonstrate how much we love God (Mark 12.41-44; Luke 12.31-48). And so we could go on. In all these we must come to God’s presence and seek His will concerning them.
12.19 ‘Take heed to yourself that you do not forsake the Levite as long as you live in your land.’
But the warning comes that the Levites were to be the constant concern of the people. They were to ensure that, as Yahweh’s servants, they never went short. They were often in different parts of the land as they carried out their responsibilities, and while tithes and firstlings may have been abundant, they may not have been easily available to individual Levites in the particular place where they were. Thus the people must ensure that their needs were provided for wherever they were, for they were holy to Yahweh. Hospitality was an important part of Israelite life, especially in welcoming Levites who were Yahweh’s servants, which was why the sin committed against the Levite in Judges 19 was so great. To allow a Levite to go short of food would be to dishonour God Whose servant he was. It would be a slur on His name. Even a cup of cold water given to a Levite out of love for Yahweh would no doubt have its reward.
For the Christian there should be equal concern for those who have been called to serve God in ministry, whether at home or abroad. We must take heed to ourselves that we do not forsake them as long as we live, but are faithful in our genuine and true support so that they do not go short.
As Long As The Blood Is Not Eaten They May Eat of their Herds and Their Flocks Without Going To The Sanctuary If They Live Too Far Away (12.20-26).
12.20 ‘When Yahweh your God shall enlarge your border, as he has promised you, and you shall say, “I will eat flesh,” because your soul desires to eat flesh, you may eat flesh, after all the desire of your soul.’
Compare verse 15, which is now expanded on. Once they were in the land and sometimes far from the Sanctuary, because Yahweh had enlarged their borders (given them land over a wide area and spread them widely) in accordance with His promise, then whenever Israelites desired to eat meat they did not have to worry about taking it to the tabernacle, if it was too far from them, but could eat as much as they desired of what belonged to them where they were. This would, however, only be a commonplace situation for the wealthy. The average persons would want to preserve their herds and flocks to provide milk and wool and would only kill them on special occasions (e.g. the fatted calf, especially fed well for the purpose).
12.21 ‘If the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to put his name there, be too far from you, then you shall kill of your herd and of your flock, which Yahweh has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul.’
If they were near the site of the Sanctuary, ‘the place which Yahweh your God has chosen to put His name there’, then they should bring their sheep, goats and cattle as offerings to the Sanctuary, but if they were too far from it for it to be feasible they could slay them within their towns to their heart’s desire. This new condition applied because once in the land things had to be seen from a new perspective. Whether ‘within your gates’ was to be applied strictly is not said, but note Leviticus 17.5-7. The idea may be in order to prevent such surreptitious sacrifices to false divinities.
12.22 ‘Even as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so you shall eat of it. The unclean and the clean may eat of it alike.’
They would be able to treat them as though they were clean game animals like the hart and the gazelle, killing them and eating them. And it would not matter whether the eaters were ritually clean or unclean, for they would not be eating sacrificial meat, which only the clean were permitted to eat. Probable examples of this are 1 Samuel 14.33-34; 1 Kings 1.9.
12.23 ‘Only be sure that you do not eat the blood: for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.’
But under no circumstances was the blood to be eaten, for the blood is the life and it was forbidden to eat the life of an animal along with its flesh. Some other peoples ate the blood of animals seeking to gain some of their life force and ferocity, but Israel were not permitted to do so. Men were not to seek to turn themselves into animals, for men were made in the image of God. Furthermore all life, even animal life, belongs to God, therefore even when permitted to slay an animal for food, the life must be given back to Him. So did they constantly learn the lesson of the sovereignty of God and under Him the sacredness of life.
12.24 ‘You shall not eat it. You shall pour it out on the earth as water.’
The blood must rather be poured out on the ground like water. This would be an act of worship and gratitude. It avoided the danger of them pouring it on some pagan altar, or of storing it or using it for some illicit purpose (e.g. to drink secretly or to sell or give to foreigners who may desire it). If the blood was not offered directly to Yahweh at His altar, it must be poured into the ground that He had made where He would receive it. When Abel’s blood had been spilt on that ground He had heard its cry (Genesis 4.10). So would Yahweh be aware of this blood being received by the ground. The ground was His. The blood was thus being given back to Him. For ‘as water’ compare 1 Samuel 7.6; 2 Samuel 23.16 where such were offerings to Yahweh.
12.25 ‘You shall not eat it, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, when you will do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh.’
By not eating the blood they would be doing right in the sight of Yahweh, and thus it would go well with them for doing right in His eyes, and the same applied to their children. This was a permanent requirement. If we would have things go well with us, we too must be equally obedient to Him in what He requires of us.
But All Holy Things (Things Dedicated to Yahweh) Must Be Taken To The Sanctuary (12.26-27).
But this does not apply to ‘your holy things’. In mind here are all the things which Yahweh has required from them. Specific appointed offerings, sacrifices offered in accordance with requirements, tithes, firstlings and so on. These may only be offered at the sanctuary.
12.26 ‘Only your holy things which you have, and your vows, you shall take, and go to the place which Yahweh shall choose,’
The holy things are those which God has appointed to be set apart for Himself. They also include votive offerings, which by their very nature have become separated to God. These they must take and go with them to the place which Yahweh chooses, the sacred place where He is pleased to dwell, and which He has appointed (except when He directs otherwise). Everything is under His direction.
12.27 ‘And you shall offer your whole burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of Yahweh your God, and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of Yahweh your God, and you shall eat the flesh.’
Here whole burnt offerings are distinguished from sacrifices. The whole of the whole burnt offerings must be offered on the altar, in one way or another, both flesh and blood. But of the sacrifices the blood must be poured on the altar, but the flesh could be eaten, some only by the priest, other by both the priest and the offerer, depending on the nature of the sacrifices, and in accordance with the requirements laid down. This was a summarised generalisation. There were also some sacrifices which had to be completely burnt. See for all this Leviticus 1-7.
Once again we are reminded that there are certain things that must come first in our lives. There are too many Christians who are happy to seek full physical satisfaction, because ‘their souls desire to eat flesh’, but come short in wholehearted dedication and commitment to God of their time, their money and their lives. If we do not honour God in the holy things, that is, in our spiritual lives, or if we do not offer Him the whole burnt offering of ourselves, we need to question whether we are really His at all.
12.28 ‘Observe and hear all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you for ever, when you do what is good and right in the eyes of Yahweh your God.’
Compare verse 25. Moses again reiterates that they must observe and hear all the words that He commands them, as their future blessing and wellbeing, and that of their children, will depend on it. In one way or another this is constantly repeated (for ‘observe’ and ‘hear’ see 6.3; 15.5; 18.14; but the general idea is multiplied e.g. 4.1; 5.1; and often). They must be in no doubt about the fact that all the blessings that they will receive are gifts from Yahweh, and are therefore dependent on obedience to the covenant in all its aspects (which included making themselves aware of what was required, which is where the Levites could help).
They Are To Beware Of The Gods Of the Nations And Not Be Entrapped By Them (12.29-30).
12.29-30 ‘When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations from before you, in the place where you go in to dispossess them, and you dispossess them, and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you be not ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before you, and that you enquire not after their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.” ’
The initial thoughts of the chapter are now taken up again. When they enter into the land and cut off the nations that are in it and dispossess them, they must remember that it is Yahweh their God Who has done it. They must therefore beware of being ensnared by the gods of those nations. They must not seek to those gods. They must not enquire about them. They must be loyal to Yahweh and reject His enemies. One of the important emphases in all treaties was the requirement of loyalty to the Suzerain and rejection of his enemies.
In those days it was common belief that different lands had different gods, so that if you wanted to prosper in a land you must show concern for the local gods. But God here points out that the gods in mind are not the gods of the land but the gods of ‘the nations’. The land is His land. Thus such ideas are not to be entertained for a moment. They must seek only to Yahweh about Yahweh’s land and are to reject and ignore the gods of the nations who at present dwell in it. This is another claim by Yahweh to sovereignty in everything.
This is the negative of which the place chosen by Yahweh in which He would set His name was the positive. They must not be diverted from Him in any way. They must positively love Him with all their being, and they must abjure anything that would interfere with that love.
12.31 ‘You shall not do so to Yahweh your God, for every abomination to Yahweh, which he hates, have they done to their gods, for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods.’
This is especially so because of the behaviour of these nations with regard to their gods. They have committed every abomination which Yahweh hates. These included perverted sex, and especially that they burned their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. This last mainly referred to the worship of the Ammonite god Molech which was clearly also worshipped in parts of Canaan (Jeremiah 32.35). But Jeremiah also connects this practise with the worship of Baal (Jeremiah 19.5), and ‘their gods’ would seem to suggest that it was connected with more than one god. Child sacrifice was probably not widely practised in Canaan, but it was certainly practised. It is also attested from documents discovered in Syria. It was, however, here simply seen as the worst of a number of abominations (‘every abomination’) that disfigured Canaanite religion. This was why it was justifiable for Yahweh to have them destroyed or driven out. They were constantly defiling the land.
12.32 ‘Whatever thing I command you, that you shall observe to do. You shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.’
Note the change to ‘ye’ which connects this verse more with the following chapter (which is a mixture of both), although it does also clearly connect with what precedes. It is a transitional verse.
Compare here 4.2. Finally Moses again asserts the importance of observing all that he commands them. They were not to add to it or diminish it. They were to accept it and obey it exactly as it came to them, for it was a part of the covenant of Yahweh. Such clauses against altering the covenant were a common feature of treaties, but here there is a deeper significance in that he refers to words that have come from God. Moses will now in chapter 13 deal with different persons who might seek to lead them astray from that word into idolatry.
There are important things that result from these words. Firstly they indicate that Moses expected there to be a clear body of truth preserved which could be referred to, otherwise his point was meaningless. Secondly it counts strongly against this being written by an honest man other than Moses. To write in this way pretending to be Moses and putting divine sanction on the words would be duplicity of an extreme kind, not pious faith. Can we really believe that a book of the moral quality of Deuteronomy arose from such duplicity?
Chapter 13 Warnings Against Idolatry And Guidance On How To Deal With Those Who Lead Men Astray.
This chapter continues the closing theme in chapter 12 where emphasis has been laid on observing the word given by God to Moses. It warns against those who would seek to lead men astray from that word by various means. The chapter begins with how to deal with false prophets who come from their midst with signs and wonders (verses 1-5), goes on to deal with family members and close friends who may seek to use their influence to lead their family astray (verses 6-11), and finally ends with how to deal with cities led astray, not by foreigners, but by worthless people ‘in your midst’, that become bastions of idolatry so that men are led astray by persuasive leaders and popular opinion (verses 12-18). These were the three major influences on their spiritual lives, preachers, family and environment. They must ensure that they were not led astray by any of them.
The emphasis in all three cases on the fact that this was ‘the enemy within’ explains the harshness of the sentences. They should know better. They were acting as traitors ‘in the midst’. And in times of emergency, as this would be, such people could only be dealt with in one way, by death. The purity of Israel could depend on it.
Such sentiments are regularly found in treaty forms where it is conceived that men may come among a subject people and seek to lead them to follow others in rebellion against the overlord. Some treaties even cite prophets and family as possible sources of this. Others cite cities. All were likely culprits for this kind of behaviour. Such ideas have been adapted here by Moses. How common in treaties these ideas were we do not know, for as yet we do not have sufficient examples of such treaties from wide enough sources.
For the Christian the lesson is that we also must beware lest we be led by such people or such influences away from ‘the simplicity which is in Christ’ (2 Corinthians 11.3). There is only one test of truth, the words that come from God.
Beware of False Prophets (13.1-5).
The warning here is against those who come with deceitful words, even showing signs and wonders, but speak contrary to God’s word. So-called prophets were a common feature of life in the Ancient Near East. They professed to have contact with the gods. We have only to consider Balaam to recognise the influence that they could have, and how they were valued (Numbers 22-24). However, this prophet would be one who had arisen ‘in the midst’ of them. Thus it would seem a false prophet of Israel is indicated, even one who cites Yahweh. He comes claiming extraordinary powers. But signs and wonder are never to be taken as proof of the genuineness of the wonderworker, nor of the truth of what he says. Note that this immediately follows 12.32. What Moses has commanded must not be laid aside because of some prophet, even one who claims to come from God. What he says must be tested against Moses’ words. Today we have a larger ‘word of God’ including the teaching of Jesus Himself. It is important that we know it well so that we too might not be led astray, and so that we can help those who are led astray. All prophets must be tested against His word. In Paul’s words they must be ‘judged’.
For the place that Yahweh has chosen so that He could set His name there will be countered by all kinds of temptations to turn from Him to other names and other gods. And in this chapter we are given three examples of such. To follow after false prophets, or false family, or false fellow-countrymen can only lead to disaster.
Analysis using Moses words:
Note that in ‘a’ the false prophet arises to deceive by signs and wonders and to lead in the way of false gods, and in the parallel he is seeking to draw them away from Yahweh their God. In ‘b’ they are not to listen to the prophet or dreamer of dreams for it is a test of Yahweh their God of their love for Him, while in the parallel that prophet or dreamer of dreams is to be put to death for speaking rebellion against Yahweh their God Who is their Deliverer. In ‘c’ they are to walk after Yahweh their God and fear Him, and in the parallel they are to keep His commandments, obey Him and cleave to Him.
12.32-13.2 ‘Whatever thing I command you (ye), that you (ye) shall observe to do. You (thou) shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it. If there arise in the midst of you (thee) a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give you (thee) a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come about, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let us go after other gods, which you (thou) have not known, and let us serve them,” ’
We have repeated 12.32 here so as to bring out the dual connection back and forwards. As a group they must observe his commands, and none of them individually shall add to his words or diminish them, neither shall the nation as a whole. ‘In the midst of you (thee)’ must refer to the nation as such, but the remainder of the verse might be seen as more having individuals in mind.
The danger warned against here is that people might come with impressive ‘signs and wonders’ and pose as prophets, or dreamers of significant dreams which they claimed, and even believed, to come from a divine source. They might point to signs and wonders that were coming, or that they performed (compare Matthew 24.24). These might for example include eclipses, or interpretations of weather conditions, or some manufactured situation brought about by conjuring or ‘magic’ (compare Exodus 7.11, 22; 8.7, 18). They may arise through bold claims which are fulfilled by some coincidence, or from some cleverly manufactured situation, or from some unknown phenomenon which could be explained given all the facts. Or it may be by means of ‘spiritual healings’ which were really psychosomatic (the result of the effect of the mind on the body. The body can be strongly affected by the mind). When Jesus came men sought similar signs and wonders from Him. But He refused to give them (Matthew 12.38-39; 16.1-4). He warned severely against looking at signs and wonders, (even though they emanated from Him everywhere because of Who He was). He never tried to use them as ‘proofs’, although to the believing John He pointed to them as demonstrating that He was the One sent from God as promised in the Old Testament (Luke 7.22). John was not looking for proof but for reassurance. But the real test of prophets is simple. Do such people speak according to God’s word? (12.32; see Isaiah 8.20). Signs and wonders are no proof of truth.
This is very different from the situation in 18.21-22. There the test is as to whether the prophet’s central message comes about. It is not there referring to signs and wonders which are used to support the message as here.
With regard to dreams, there have been a few times when God has through history spoken through dreams given to certain chosen men, especially when the dream has left behind a sense of foreboding. But that is far from saying that dreams generally are revelations from God, although in those days they were often deemed to be. Such God-given dreams are few and far between, given in relation to special people and situations (Genesis 20.3; 31.11; Numbers 12.6; Joel 2.28). Numbers 12.6 tells us that to lesser prophets God does sometimes reveal things through dreams, but does not see it as a reliable method of obtaining full truth. There God contrasts those who come with such dreams who speak in ‘dark speeches’ (in that case Aaron and Miriam) with the one who came with the direct word of God (Moses). The dreams must be tested out and must not be given too much emphasis.
Most dreams result from what has been eaten the day before, or arise from strongly desiring something which cannot be obtained in practise, or through some vivid event that has affected the inner mind, or from working too hard (Ecclesiastes 5.3), or simply result from a vivid imagination (Ecclesiastes 5.7). It would sometimes be nice if we could go to bed and dream away our problems and difficulties and obtain answers to them. But life is not like that. Many have been led astray by following dreams. We should beware of laying too much emphasis on them and reject them utterly if they go contrary to, or seek to expand on, the word of God.
The religious ‘importance’ of dreams would be well known from Egypt where many manuals were written on the interpretation of dreams, and it had become a ‘science’, although not a reliable one. It is therefore interesting that outside Genesis (pre-Mosaic) and Daniel (post-exilic, and the latter in a foreign country where dreams were given credence) little credence is laid on dreams in the Old Testament. And even in Genesis, apart from outsiders (this being God’s purpose in giving them), dreams appear only to come to immature young men starting out in life (28.12; 37.5, 9), not for prophetic purposes but for personal reasons. We can discount 31.10-11 for that was for Laban’s consumption. Outside Genesis and Daniel there are occasional references to dreams (1 Samuel 28.6; Jeremiah 23.25-32; 27.9; 29.8; Zechariah 10.2) all of which are derogatory. Only Numbers 12.6; 1 Kings 3.5, 15; Joel 2.28 are positive references, and even then the dreamer is at a lower level than Yahweh’s prophets except possibly in the case of Joel 2.28, but that is referring to a unique time (and interestingly also refers to young men). Thus on the whole the Bible does not encourage the use of dreams as a means of discovering truth, although occasionally allowing it. Genuine dreams, like genuine miracles, appear to have come in rare bursts. If someone comes to us with a dream we should perhaps suggest that they have heard ‘unspeakable things which it is not lawful for a man to utter’,
In this case these wonderworkers and dreamers would seek to lead people off to giving credence to strange gods with a view to worshipping and serving them, which makes quite clear that they could not be trusted. For God’s word on this matter was particularly clear. ‘No other gods’. Thus they must be rejected and dealt with severely.
‘Which you have not known.’ This has a dual aspect to it. Firstly it may indicate an attempt to arouse interest by introducing something new. They were, said their proponents, unknown, powerful gods (compare Acts 17.21. While these were not Greek intellectuals many people who are not intellectuals also cannot resist novelty). But secondly Moses is pointing out that they had no practical experience of such gods. They have not ‘known’ them by experiencing what they can do. How foolish then it would be to trust in them and follow them. On the other hand they did know through experience what Yahweh could do, for He had already done it. They knew precisely how powerful He was. Let them therefore look only to Him. To turn from the One Whom they knew through long experience, to supposed gods whose credentials were totally unknown, would be totally inexcusable. This point is made by Moses again and again (verses 6 & 13; 11.28; 28.64; 29.26)
13.3 ‘You (thou) shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or to that dreamer of dreams, for Yahweh your God proves you (ye), to know whether you (ye) love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul.’
The point is now made that it is important not to listen to those who come with anything that contradicts what God has said, and especially when what He has said has been stated plainly, even though they come with signs and wonders and extraordinary dreams. God does allow such things to happen as He did with Balaam (although He does not deliberately act to bring them about) in order to test whether we will follow His word closely. But those who love God with all their heart and soul will soon discern truth from falsehood. We are reminded again that ‘love’ is the true covenant response. The Christian looks not to outward signs, but to the witness within of the Spirit to His word (1 John 2.20, 27). Those who are true speak what is true (1 John 4.1-2), and those who are true hear what is true. Some of these wonderworkers will be such that if it were possible they would even deceive them, but thankfully that is not possible (Matthew 24.24), for they look to His word (in this case the word of Moses) and judge all by that.
13.4 ‘You (ye) shall walk after Yahweh your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and you shall serve him, and cleave to him.’
Note here the contrast with verse 5. ‘You’ (ye) on the one hand, and ‘that prophet’ on the other. This may be utilising, as an example, treaty stipulations known to Moses from his past. This is how the believer can keep on the true path, by wholehearted loyalty. By walking after Yahweh his God, by fearing Him, by keeping His commandments, by obeying His voice, by serving Him, by cleaving to Him (see 5.33; 8.6; 10.12; 11.22). They are to be like sheep who diligently follow the shepherd. As Jesus said, ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and none shall pluck them from My hand’ (John 10.27-28). Such will never be led astray by false teaching.
The summary is a good description of different aspects of the Christian life. ‘Walk after God.’ Our lives are to be a daily walk with Him as He walks with us through the day. ‘Fear’ - we could do with a little more of the fear of God. ‘Keep His commandments.’ We must observe them and do them. ‘Obey His voice.’ We must ever be open to His prompting, and sensitive to what He requires, a sensitivity acquired by reading His word and by worship. ‘Serve Him.’ This includes both worship and doing His will. We must never forget that we are servants. ‘Cleave to Him.’ This involves true responsive love and not allowing anything else to come between us and God.
A preacher tells how a student once came to him and told him how he was losing his faith because of liberal teaching. His response was simply to look back at him and ask, ‘What have you been doing?’ He knew that the problem was not with the liberal teaching, which could be coped with, it was with his failure to walk after God and obey Him and cleave to Him. And the student bowed his head and admitted that he was right. He had lost touch with God and was craving after the world. That was his real problem. The other was simply an excuse.
13.5 ‘And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he has spoken rebellion against Yahweh your (of ye) God, who brought you (ye) out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you (thee) out of the house of bondage, to draw you (thee) aside out of the way which Yahweh your (thy) God commanded you (thee) to walk in. So shall you (thou) put away the evil from the midst of you.’
But the prophet or dreamer of dreams who seeks to lead them to worship false gods shall be put to death for urging rebellion against their Overlord. This was always the sentence on traitors in treaties. The greatness of their offence is stressed by the reminder of the gratitude that they should have had for their Overlord. He had brought them out of the land of Egypt (1.20; 4.20, 37; 5.6, 15; 6.12, 21; 7.8, 18; 8.14; 9.26; 16.1; 20.1; 26.8; 29.25), delivering them by a mighty hand, and had redeemed them from the house of bondage (7.8; 15.15; 24.18; see also 5.6; 6.12, 21; 8.14; 13.10; 16.12; 24.22). How then can they now turn against Him? It can be seen how important this motif is in the book. The stress on ‘redemption’ emphasises how He had exercised His power on their behalf. They had much to be grateful for.
The severity of the punishment reflects the situation. At this new birth of the nation it was essential that the children of Israel be fully protected, and it was important that they themselves saw the severity of the offence. There could only be one penalty. Death. For such teaching led to death.
‘So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.’ Compare 17.7, 12; 19.19; 21.21; 22.21-22, 24; 24.7 also see 19.13; 21.9. This was usually, but not always, by death (see 19.19). The evils in mind were considered to be so serious that the death sentence was usually required. Evil was put away by carrying out Yahweh’s sentence, and Moses wants them to see how important the putting away of that evil was.
Beware Of Treachery In The Family (13.6-11).
The idea of the family is used in order to demonstrate that all this even applied there. Of all people they would be the most influential on a person. But if it came to a choice between Yahweh or family, Yahweh must come first. The principle is that this be done to anyone who seeks to lead others into idolatry, even beloved wives with whom they sleep and bosom friends. Anyone who came inciting to idolatry had to be treated as a bitter enemy. It was demonstrating how seriously Yahweh took the matter.
Analysis using Moses’ words:
Note in ‘a’ that the relative seeks to draw them away secretly from Him after other gods, and in the parallel the thing is to be known openly by all Israel. In ‘b’ the relative seeks to lure him away after false gods, and in the parallel they are to be put to death for seeking to draw them away from Yahweh their God, their great Deliverer. In ‘c’ he was not to be pandered to in any way but was to be killed, and in the parallel he was to be stoned with stones.
13.6-7 ‘If your (thy) brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend that is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known, you, nor your fathers, of the gods of the peoples that are round about you (ye), near to you (thee), or far off from you, from the one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth,’
However close the relationship of the person (and all had a responsibility to protect their close relatives), and however dear the person might be, if they sought to entice them in secret to follow any other gods of any kind, whether gods of neighbours or gods from afar, even to the ends of the earth, they were to be put to death at the instigation of the whole people. This would, however, require witnesses, for no one in Israel could be condemned on the basis of the testimony of one person (17.6-7; 19.15; Numbers 35.30). It does not therefore refer to just a speculative comment in private which could easily be brushed aside with a stern rebuke, but a persistent effort, even within the privacy of the family circle.
13.8-10 ‘You (thou) shall not consent to him, nor listen to him; nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him, but you shall surely kill him. Your hand shall be first on him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And you shall stone him to death with stones, because he has sought to draw you away from Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.’
The offence is so serious that they must in no circumstances listen to them, nor must they conceal the matter, nor must they have pity. ‘You (thou) shall surely kill him.’ That is, begin the procedures that will lead to his death, and take part in the execution, as would be required of a witness. This was not a requirement to kill them there and then. It was not in the end a private matter. It affected the whole community. They must denounce them and have them put to death by public execution. There must be a proper enquiry (see verse 14). This was no excuse for murdering someone, followed by a claim that they had incited to idolatry. Thus it would indicate a persistent attitude witnessed by more than one person. And yet they as witnesses against them must hate the crime so much that they must be ready with the first stone. (The witnesses always had to lead the way in stoning). The offenders must be stoned with stones (because ‘untouchable’) because they have sought to lead them into treachery against their Overlord Who has done so much for them.
It should be noted that this is not an instruction to seek out such people and denounce them. The point is specifically that the offenders have come to this individual to seek to entice them away from Yahweh, and have done it sufficiently publicly for there to be witnesses. They have doubly sinned. They have not only turned to idolatry themselves but have also sought to turn others to idolatry as well.
13.11 ‘And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall not do any more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of you.’
And the purpose of this was so that all Israel might be aware of it, and might fear, and avoid such wickedness. It is the severity of the offence rather than the desire for punishment that is being stressed. In fact it was rarely carried out as far as we know, partly because in the first instance the warning worked, and then later because of general apathy. But all must be aware of the seriousness of the crime. It was a capital offence. There was to be no connection with idolatry whatsoever under any pretext, and any attempt at such must be scotched at source.
If only Israel had carried this out in practise there would have been a wholly different Old Testament. However, the whole point of the Old (and New) Testament, is that it was inevitable because men were so sinful.
It is a reminder to us that we must never dally with sin, but put it from us immediately, especially if that sin directly involves our obedience to Christ, and that if others seek to lead us astray we should separate ourselves from their influence. The idolatry that most of us are likely to be involved in is covetousness. We should immediately avoid those who seek to make us covetous.
Judgment On The City That Rebels (13.12-17).
The same was to be true for any city in Israel that turned after idolatry. It must not be tolerated. But note the extensiveness of the enquiry that should be made first. This was no place for hasty judgments. ‘Enquire -- search -- ask diligently.’ It must not be done on the basis of a rumour, but only after intensive investigation. The same principle no doubt applied to the previous examples. And no gain was to be made by anyone from it. All that was in that city must be devoted to Yahweh, and destroyed, and the city itself made a ruin never to be rebuilt because it was tainted with blasphemy. The offence was so great that all that was connected with it must be destroyed.
The general principle behind these words should be noted, that no judgment must be passed without a fair hearing. To judge someone summarily and without fair consideration is to follow the Evil One, and sadly too many Christians, and even ministers, do it.
Analysis using Moses’ words:
In ‘a’ reference is made to certain unworthy people who live in a city which Yahweh their God has given His people to dwell in, a great boon for which they owe Him their allegiance and yet they have turned away from Him (and will thus be under His anger), and in the parallel is the blessing that will come to those are not base and Who cleave to Yahweh their God doing what is right in His eyes. In ‘b’ diligent enquiry is to be made into the situation in order to eradicate any evil or abomination, and in the parallel nothing that is abominable and fitted to devotion to destruction is to cleave to His righteous people so that the anger of Yahweh may be turned away and they at least be spared through His compassion. In ‘c’ the sentence on the wayward city is described and in the parallel this is expanded on.
13.12-14 ‘If you shall hear tell concerning one of your cities, which Yahweh your God gives you to dwell there, saying, “Certain base fellows (‘worthless people’) are gone out from the midst of you, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known, then shall you enquire, and make search, and ask diligently, and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of you,’
If news came of the defection of a city, given to them by Yahweh, to other gods, (it is Yahweh’s city and they are handing it over to the enemy), brought about by ‘worthless people’, (an expression of extreme contempt), then a full official investigation of the matter must be made. All Israel must be involved (accusing or taking a city was no simple matter). But they must only carry out the sentence when they know that the thing is certain. That this was taken seriously comes out in Judges 19-21, although the sin was of a different kind.
Note the word ‘abomination’ which is regularly used of idolatry. It is that which cannot be excused under any circumstances. It is totally displeasing to God and to be avoided at all costs. It is despicable.
But what an important general principle is established here for us. If you ‘hear tell’ you must not do anything without a thorough investigation. That is one difference between gossip and truth. Gossip is mischievously passing on rumours. Truth is something not spoken about until full enquiry has been made. The amount of harm which would have been prevented if only Christians and Christian leaders and others had taken this to heart is inestimable.
13.15-16 ‘You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. And you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of its street, and shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil every whit, to Yahweh your God, and it shall be a heap for ever. It shall not be built again.’
But once the thing was proved the sentence must be carried out. The contamination was so great that the guilty were to be slain, their cattle destroyed, their goods burned with fire. All had been defiled. It was as though they had the plague. It was to be given back to Yahweh in the most devastating way. It was to be handed over to Him. It was to be ‘devoted’. Nothing must be saved from it. It was for ever to be a heap of testimony to what had been done.
13.17-18 ‘And there shall cleave nothing of the devoted thing to your hand, that Yahweh may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show you mercy, and have compassion on you, and multiply you, as he has sworn to your fathers, when you shall listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to keep all his commandments which I command you this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh your God.’
Not a single thing must be saved from the destruction, and above all no one must be tempted to take anything for themselves (compare Joshua 7). They must not let anything cleave to them. All was tainted. It must be devoted to Yahweh in order to cleanse the land. Then Yahweh would not need to come and exact justice on a rebellious and tainted land. The picture is very much that of an Overlord against whom a city has rebelled, but with others taking His side against His enemies (otherwise they would be seen as sharing their guilt). Compare what happened to Gibeah for their abomination (Judges 20.42-48).
‘That Yahweh may turn from the fierceness of his anger.’ This was no minor misdemeanour, and Yahweh’s anger was directed towards the whole land for allowing this in their midst. We are to recognise that we are as much guilty for sin that we allow, as for sin that we commit. Unless we have done what we could to be rid of it we are equally guilty.
And by their obedience the people will obtain mercy. Note the threefold ‘show you mercy, have compassion on you, multiply you’, indicating complete vindication. They will not share in the guilt of the city. And they will find that their Overlord is as gracious to them as He was before. He will neither punish the innocent nor clear the guilty. He will continue to fulfil His covenant, having compassion on them and multiplying them as He swore to their fathers.
‘When you shall listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to keep all his commandments which I command you this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh your God.’ And this would be because they had listened to the voice of Yahweh their God, and were keeping His commandments, and doing what was right in His eyes (another triad). The lesson is clear. Response and obedience will bring blessing, disobedience will bring judgment.
The whole chapter emphasises the words of the second commandment, that Yahweh is jealous over the purity of His people, and will visit iniquity on the guilty and have compassion on the thousands Who love Him and keep His commandments (5.9-10; Exodus 20.5-6).
Chapter 14 The Call To Walk Worthy of Being His People.
This chapter covers the need for His people to remember who they were and to walk worthily of Him, and be fit to worship Him and come to the place that Yahweh has chosen to dwell in. They were not to follow customs that were tainted because of their significance. In their eating and their lives they were to avoid all that was ‘unclean’ (as defined) and might defile them, and all unsavoury practises. Their lives were to aim at what was positive. This was because they were His children, and a holy people set apart as His own treasured possession (14.3-21). Comparison should be made here with Leviticus 11. But while they must abjure all that was tainted they were especially to eat of a portion of the tithes, that which had been offered to Yahweh, as a holy feast before Him (14.22-29). That was good. Such times were to be the highlights of their year.
So the chapter ends with the feasting at the place chosen by Yahweh where He dwells among them, bringing us back to the thought of chapter 12 where this has previously been expressed. What is prescribed here is to be seen as closely involved with the sanctuary. In the end everything comes back to God. In the same way Chapter 15 will end with reference to the firstlings, a further means of bringing us back to the feasting of chapter 12, and this is prior to the description of the three main feasts of Yahweh at the place which Yahweh will choose as a dwellingplace in chapter 16. Thus the whole section from chapter 12.1-16.17 is built up around the worship of Yahweh in His presence at His chosen place and is important with respect to it.
Part of this passage is a clear representation of the ideas in Leviticus 11, but abbreviated in order not to be too turgid. It is in speech form. Consider how he refers to eating ‘clean winged creatures’ with no explanation, requiring the kind of explanation found in Leviticus 11.21-22, and avoids the more complicated aspects of uncleanness found there. This connection with a speech is also apparent from the way the theme is introduced.
Thus the first point in the part referring to cleanness is the general apodictic commandment that ‘you shall not eat any abominable thing’, which is then expanded on. The word ‘abominable’ is strong. It is used in 7.25; 12.31 of what is totally despicable. It is what God hates. Thus he will deal here with what is abominable, and defiles Yahweh’s holy people. But why are they abominable? Because they are ‘unclean’, they do not live within their proper spheres, they enter into and eat in unclean places, they nuzzle in the dust to which the serpent was condemned, they are scavengers and/or killers and eat the forbidden blood. They are totally unholy. They are not worthy of Yahweh. To eat them is to bring dishonour on His name and partake in their disreputableness. The principle inculcates a pure attitude towards life.
It should not surprise us if animals which nuzzled in the dust, and reptiles and creatures that lived in the dust and never rose above it were seen as especially unclean, and even more ‘creeping things’, for the dust is what man who dies will return to. It is the dust of death (Psalm 22.15, 29; 30.9; 104.29; Ecclesiastes 3.20; Daniel 12.2). To ‘cleave to the dust’ was considered to be the same as dying (Psalm 119.25). It was a world of death. And while the curse was partly relieved by God’s covenant with Noah as far as man was concerned (Genesis 9.21), which might explain why grazing land and arable land could be seen as ‘clean’ (it must have been seen as clean for it fed clean animals), it certainly did not remove the whole curse. Thorns and thistles are still man’s bain. The earth is still man’s adversary and seeks ever to return to the wild or to desert. And all this was closely linked with death (Genesis 3.19; 5.5), which was the final sentence.
The basic principle of what creatures are clean and unclean is fairly simple, although in detail it becomes more complicated. What is clean is what is wholesome. It does not grovel in the dust of death. It avoids unwholesome places. It eats hygienically. We must remember that it deals with the wilderness and with Palestine on the basis of a simple understanding of nature, and with general easily distinguishable principles. It was how things were in general seen. It was intended to be practical. It was not intended to cover worldwide natural science or be specific as to detail. Thus cattle and their equivalent eat grass and vegetation, and walk and feed in places less likely to be ‘unclean’ or to be infected by parasites and death. They keep to their proper sphere. In general all other animals do not.
Its purpose was not as a medical guide, although it would certainly help to prevent diseases, but was in order to increase Israel’s self esteem and sense of holiness so that they aimed high in their lives. They were being made aware that they were a holy people, who therefore only partook of what was superior and of what kept to its proper sphere, as they must themselves keep to their proper sphere. What mattered with regard to the differentiations was not the facts of natural science but how things were perceived. It was encouraging a pure attitude of mind.
Thus the animals which were clean were seen to chew extensively (translated ‘chewed the cud’) and had cloven feet. All knew that they ate what was clean and, limited by their feet, tended to go where it was clean. They did not eat blood. They were not predators. They did not nuzzle in the dirt. They avoided unclean places. The fish that were clean swam and ate in the flowing water, not at the bottom of the river. The birds that were clean flew and ate insects or corn. They did not delve in dirt and dust (compare Psalm 22.15, 29; 30.9; 104.29; Ecclesiastes 3.20; Daniel 12.2). They did not eat carrion or kill their own kind, or eat blood, or gather food from the mud. The insects that were clean leaped above the ground, not grovelled in it. They all illustrate the walk in wholesomeness of the people of God. They all kept to their ‘proper sphere’ and avoided the ‘dust of death’.
What follows from this is that they were least likely to cause disease, which was another good reason for avoiding them, but that was not the central point, although it probably played a part. It was not in that sense a divine indication that all other creatures were not edible, only that avoiding them would as a whole be to their benefit. Some were certainly known by them to have been closely connected with the worship of false gods, but the ox bull could be eaten and yet was connected with Canaanite religion (although that may simply have been overridden by custom). There may have been something of both these in the conception of uncleanness, but mainly the principle was one of wholesomeness and unwholesomeness.
This explains why the cleanness of animals is connected with verse 1 which refers to deliberate disfigurements. Yahweh’s people were called on to be wholesome in every way, wholesome without and wholesome within.
Analysis based on the words of Moses:
Note with respect to ‘a’ that sons of Yahweh their God they were, and they were not to cut themselves, nor make any baldness between their eyes for the dead (religious rites), and in the parallel they were not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk (son of a goat it was). This parallel suggests that the boiling of a kid in its mother’s milk was also a religious rite. In ‘b’ Israel are a holy people to Yahweh their God, and Yahweh has chosen them to be a people for His own possession, above all peoples that are on the face of the earth and in the parallel they may not eat of anything that dies of itself (for they are His own possession), but they may give it to the resident alien who is within their gates, that he may eat it or they may sell it to a foreigner (the people on the face of the earth), for they are a holy people to Yahweh their God. In ‘c’ they may not eat any abominable thing and in the parallel all winged creeping things (which are abominable things - Leviticus 11.43; Ezekiel 8.10) are unclean to them. In ‘d’ is a list of beast that can be eaten and in the parallel a list of birds which cannot be eaten. In ‘e’ they may eat of all clean beasts and in the parallel they may eat of all clean birds. In ‘f’ there is a list of animals they may not eat, and in the parallel a list of fish that they may eat.
14.1 ‘Sons of Yahweh your God you (ye) are. You shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.’
The first forbidden thing is unwholesome religious practises. Because they were ‘the sons of Yahweh their God’ (emphasised by being placed first in the sentence) they must not disfigure themselves. They were made in the image of God. So deliberate disfigurement was frowned on by Yahweh, and forbidden to His holy people. They must honour their God created bodies. We call to mind how an offering could not be made to Yahweh of what was blemished. They too must not blemish themselves. So they must neither cut themselves nor shave off their hair in unusual places. These were regular mourning practises in Canaan and elsewhere, testified to at Ugarit, and may have had deep religious significance (see Leviticus 19.27-28, and compare Isaiah 3.24; 15.2; 22.12; Jeremiah 16.6; 41.5; Ezekiel 7.18; Amos 8.10; Micah 1.16). They were not to be carried out by His people.
Leviticus 19.27-28 also forbade cutting the flesh of, and printing marks on, His people. All forms of tattoos and tribal markings, together with significant hair shaving, were seen as simply disfiguring, if not blasphemous. They were contrary to Yahweh’s holiness, and to His possession of His people.
We note here in this strange (to us) context a stress on Israel’s sonship, a concept we have noticed earlier (1.31; 8.5; compare Exodus 4.23). Israel as a whole was seen by Yahweh as His firstborn son, and He was as a Father to them. They must therefore do nothing to discredit the family name, or give the impression of belonging to any other. This is not a universal fatherhood of God. It is specifically indicating that it is those whom Yahweh has chosen, and on whom He has set His love (chapters 6-7), who are His children, and to whom He is Father. He is Father to those who have come within His covenant.
As early as the third and second millennia BC we find the deity addressed as father, for we find this title for the first time in Sumerian prayers, long before the time of Moses and the prophets, and there already the word "father" does not merely refer to the deity as powerful lord, and as procreator and ancestor of the king and of the people, but it also has quite another significance, and is used for the "merciful, gracious father, in whose hand the life of the whole land lies" (a hymn from Ur to the moon god Sin). But there the father was rather like a mother figure mothering her young, whereas to Israel Yahweh was the One Who in His authority had called them and in His love had prepared for them an inheritance. He would watch over them and in return they were to do His bidding.
There are good grounds for seeing from this that for the true child of God disfiguring the body with tattoos and piercings is frowned on by God. It is to dishonour His special creation and to demonstrate an attitude which is the opposite of consecration to Him.
Note in the analysis how this contrasts with the son of a goat (kid) boiled in its mother’s milk. It does serve to bring out that God is concerned about all creatures. ‘Uncleanness’ is not a condemnation of the creatures but of the environment in which they live. They were a constant lesson that His people themselves should live in a pure environment, as we now go on to see.
14.2 ‘For a holy people you (thou) are to Yahweh your God, and Yahweh has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are on the face of the earth.’
And the reason for this was their unique status. They were a holy (set apart for Yahweh) people, chosen to be a people for His own possession. Compare 7.6; 26.18; Exodus 19.5. The word used here can signify the king’s treasure, for segulla means ‘prized highly’. See its use in 1 Chronicles 29.3; Ecclesiastes 2.8. Its Akkadian equivalent sikiltu was used in treaty seals to describe kings as special possessions of their gods. Israel, His own sons, were thus treasured above all peoples on the face of the earth, and must present themselves accordingly. No other possession mark must be on them other than what He has determined (the latter would be the sign of circumcision which they would soon be required to submit to, but was not suitable until they had entered the land). Just as He has chosen a place to be among them, so has He chosen them as His own sons and as His own possession to be holy to Him.
14.3 ‘You (thou) shall not eat any abominable thing.’
That is why they must not eat any abominable thing. Nothing distasteful or demeaning or connected with unwholesome death must enter their bodies. As Yahweh’s own they must only eat of what is seen to be pure and good. Even their eating must reveal the purity of their lives. A list and description of what may and may not be eaten is then given. It commences with clean animals that can be used for offerings and sacrifices, followed by those which are clean and can be eaten, but cannot be offered as offerings and sacrifices, and moves on to clean fish and birds. The types, though not the sequence, are based on Genesis 1. In the parallel passage in Leviticus 11 the connection with Genesis is much more specific.
14.4 ‘These are the beasts which you (ye) may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,’
These are the animals which can be used for offerings and sacrifices. They are all domestic animals. They belong to the people (in contrast with wild animals which belong to Yahweh) and can be offered to God as an offering. Thus they are clearly right to eat.
14.5 ‘The hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck, and the wild goat, and the ibex, and the antelope, and the chamois.’
These are animals which can be hunted for game and eaten as ‘clean’, but cannot be offered as offerings and sacrifices, for as wild beasts they already belong to Yahweh (Psalm 50.10).
14.6 ‘And every beast that parts the hoof, and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that may you (ye) eat.’
The principle on which they are chosen is declared. They have the hoof cloven in two and ‘chew the cud’. How the latter was technically conceived we do not know, but the principle was that they ate slowly and deliberately, and took good time over eating their food, all of which was of a kind suitable for that purpose. (Thus it does not necessarily mean literally ‘chewing the cud’ by swallowing and regurgitating). The point is that they ate ‘proper food’. The make up of their feet meant that they tended to remain and eat on clean land, land good for growing crops and herbage, and not to wander into ‘unclean’ areas. The way they ate made them careful in what they ate. (The goat can be an exception to this, but probably not as herded by the Israelites).
14.7 ‘Nevertheless these you shall not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of those who have the hoof cloven, the camel, and the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, they are unclean to you.’
Other animals which are seen as edible to other nations, were not to be seen as so to Israel. These animals may chew slowly and obviously, or they may have cloven feet, but they do not have both. Thus the camel’s feet enable it to wander in desert regions, where death is prevalent. Such regions were looked on with foreboding in Israel. The hare and the rock badger, while they chew slowly and deliberately, go into places which are ‘unclean’ because their feet enable them to scrabble and encourage them to do so. They are thus ‘unclean’.
14.8 ‘And the swine, because he parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, he is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch.’
The pig or swine is a further example. In this case it parts the hoof, but it does not chew slowly and deliberately. It nuzzles in the dirt and eats what is unsavoury. That a sow that was washed returned to its wallowing in the mire became a proverb, because that was how through the ages it was seen (2 Peter 2.22). It was therefore not seen as suitable food for Yahweh’s people.
That these distinctions would preserve Israel from many, although not all, diseases is unquestionable. But the overt point is not so much avoidance of disease as the fact of unsuitability, although the one merges into the other. Those that wandered in doubtful environments or nuzzled in the dust, both connected with death, must not be eaten. They did not keep to their proper sphere, whereas His people are constantly required to keep to their proper sphere within the covenant. In all cases the behaviour of unclean creatures was the opposite of what Yahweh was. And His people were to model their lives on what was wholesome. See commentary on Leviticus for further detailed treatment.
14.9-10 ‘These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales you may eat, and whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean to you.’
The distinction with sea and river creatures is again clear and specific. All fish with fins and scales, of which they were aware, swam in the rivers but did not delve into the mud. These were thus ‘clean’. Other creatures did delve in the mud, and were therefore unclean. Again this was not a scientific survey but a fact of observation. This excluded some that were certainly edible, but included shellfish which under certain circumstances could cause unpleasant diseases. But what was most important as seen in this context was their contamination by their contact with dirt and mud.
14.11 ‘Of all clean birds you may eat.’
Again the common birds such as the turtle-dove and pigeons could be eaten, along with many others. They flew in the air, and ate insects and seed. They kept to their proper sphere.
14.12-18 ‘But these are they of which you (ye) shall not eat: the griffon vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey, and the glede, and the falcon, and the kite after its kind, and every raven after its kind, and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kind, the little owl, and the great owl, and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the black vulture, and the cormorant, and the stork, and the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat.’
But others were predators and ate carrion and blood. The ostrich, like the camel, wandered in desert regions, and was noted for her lack of care of her young and buried them in the dust of the earth (Job 39.13-18). The wading birds plunged their beaks into the mud. The bat came from dark secret places, and dwelt in tombs and burial places. All had about them that which was ‘unclean’.
This list is so close to that of Leviticus 11.13-19, even as to order, while expanding on it, that either one must be dependent on the other, or they must come from the same tradition. It could be explained by Leviticus 11.13-19 being in the memory of the speaker, but deliberately added to in speech, as the speaker thought of other similar birds, for in the end it is certain types of birds which must not be eaten, eaters of carrion, wading birds and the like.
14.19-20 ‘And all winged creeping things are unclean to you: they shall not be eaten. Of all clean ‘winged creatures’ (or ‘birds’) you may eat.’
Winged creeping things were necessarily of the dirt and could not be eaten, but some winged creatures (such as the locust) did not crawl in the dirt but leaped on their legs (Leviticus 11.21). The word used for ‘winged creatures’ regularly means ‘bird’, and does so in the parallel passage in Leviticus. But here it is clearly connected with winged creeping things. Possibly therefore it must be seen to take its wider meaning of winged creatures, in view of the fact that a different word for birds is used in verse 11. On the other hand it may simply be an added assurance that they can eat clean birds.
In all this we see how God’s people were to avoid all that outwardly had about them the taint of their behaviour. They were only to eat of what rose above the things that defile. In essence they could eat what ‘keeps its proper sphere’. This would bring home to them by constant example that they too were to live uplifted and pure lives on the higher plane, which was their proper sphere. Thus would they be worthy of Yahweh.
Unquestionably by following these principles the Israelites would avoid many kinds of disease, but the primary aim was not that but in order to inculcate a proper principle of life, to live wholesomely.
14.21a ‘You (ye) shall not eat of anything that dies of itself: you (thou) may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you (thou) are a holy people to Yahweh your God.’
They must thus not eat of what dies of itself. What has died is already committed to Yahweh in death, and is lifeless, and is not suitable for them as a holy people to Yahweh their God, for He is the Lord of life. They must only eat that which has life, and of which they have been able to commit the blood, and in cases of things that died of themselves the blood would not have been properly dealt with. However resident aliens and foreigners were not a holy people, therefore such food could be given to the one or sold to the other. Note the distinction. The resident alien must be cared for, the foreigner must pay for what he gets.
‘For you (thou) are a holy people to Yahweh your God.’ This is also cited in verse 2. In view of its placing in the analysis this is remarkable confirmation of the chiastic framework (otherwise why just here?) and doubly emphasises the holiness of His people.
Here their being a holy people contrasts with resident aliens and foreigners (both of whom are not proselytes, otherwise they would be ‘holy people’). Here then the stress is very much on the fact that Yahweh’s people keep to a pure environment and only eat what comes from it.
14.21b ‘You (thou) shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.’
See Exodus 23.9; 34.26. Its being placed here connects with the idea that Israel are His holy people (just as verse 1 connects with verse 2 and with Yahweh’s fatherhood of His people. Here though the son is of a clean beast. It is thus not to be put into an unsuitable environment. But the comparison with verse 1 would suggest that it has religious connections.
Whether this does refer to a pagan mystical practise, or is just seen as unseemly in view of the relationship between mother and kid is debated. For a kid to be boiled in the very milk which was supposed to feed it and be its source of life meant that it was not in its ‘proper sphere’. It would be an ‘unclean’ practise, and unwholesome. A person would have to be totally insensitive to do such a thing. So in view of the emphasis on outward appearance in this chapter the latter could well be the case. The example sometimes cited from Ugarit is of doubtful translation and relevance. But the way in which it is connected with the Passover in Exodus 23.19 with 15 may indicate a mystical and unacceptable practise (see commentary on that passage).
So the emphasis all through this passage has been on doing what is seemly, and avoiding all appearance of lowering themselves to the level of the world of predatorial beasts and birds, and creeping things, and death. Especially of avoiding all things that were seen as consigned to the dust to which the serpent had originally been consigned, and the avoidance of contact with the sphere of ‘the dust of death’. In Leviticus the connection with Genesis 1-3 is more apparent. They were to look Godward and not earthward. This would then protect them from disease and from idolatry, but equally importantly, from being unwholesome. The aim of such teaching was not only to prevent their eating what might physically harm them, but to give them an attitude to life that was pure.
The lesson for us is that our lives too should have the appearance of the heavenly. We too should abstain from all appearance of evil. We now have a different conception of creation so that the specific restrictions no longer apply, nor would they teach the same lessons to us as to those who lived so close to nature. What we are called on to avoid is rather the lowering of ourselves in the moral sphere. We too are thus to be ‘clean’.
Jesus, in another context, makes this clear. He stressed that it is what comes from men’s hearts that defiles (Mark 7.14-23), and must therefore be avoided. Acts 10.14-15 also demonstrates that nothing in creation is ‘unclean’ of itself. It becomes unclean by what it does. There is, of course, still the need to discriminate, but on a different basis depending on health risk.
The Highest Level Of Eating; That Which Is Their Gift To Yahweh (14.22-27).
In total contrast with what has gone before, the tithe is holy food. It has been set aside for Yahweh and is for the priests (a tenth of it), the Levites (a good proportion of it) and Yahweh’s ‘pensioners’, the widows, the orphans and the resident aliens, with some being made available at the religious feasts held at the Sanctuary, the place which Yahweh chooses.
So having listed those thing which may or may not be eaten, he goes on to deal with eating in its highest form, eating before Yahweh of that which is His. This is the purest form of eating. They can do this because they are ‘clean’. He ignores the tithing of the increase among animals, a practise which was now common among them and did not therefore need to be referred to, and proceeds to deal with what will be a relatively new phenomenon in the future, the tithing of crops and vegetation. The abundance of this which will be produced when they enter the land will result in an additional purpose for the tithe.
Tithing was common in many nations from ancient times. In the case of Israel the tithing law may originally simply have been refining an ancient practise customary in Israel, but he was now looking at it as it would apply once they were in the land and there were abundance of tithes from abundant harvests, far too much than was needed just by the Levites.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note in ‘a’ that they are to tithe their increase and in the parallel they are to see to the needs of the Levites who dwell among them for he does not have an inheritance among them. This setting in the analysis confirms that, as in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, the tithe is primarily for the Levites. In ‘b’ they are to eat their tithe and firstlings before Yahweh their God in the place which He chooses, and in the parallel those who live too far away may use their cash obtained as in verse 25 and eat them before Yahweh their God. In ‘c’ if the way be too long from the place which Yahweh chooses, so that they would find it difficult to bear their tithes to the Sanctuary, they may in the parallel turn their tithes into cash and go to the place which Yahweh their God chooses.
14.22 You (thou) shall surely tithe all the increase of your seed, that which comes forth from the field year by year.’
(This whole section is ‘thou’).
This setting aside of a tenth has already been mentioned briefly in 12.6, 17, and was well established by the Law (Leviticus 27.30-33; Numbers 18.21-24). Now it is repeated. It will be required of them that they tithe all the increase of their seed which will come from their fields year by year. They have already got into the pattern of tithing the increase of their flocks and herds, but tithing seed has not been too common an experience for them. Wandering in the wilderness was not the best place for such activity, although they probably did at times remain in some places long enough to sow seed and see it grow. Thus when they possess the land and receive abundance they must ensure that they yield a proportion of its increase to Yahweh in accordance with the tithing (giving of a tenth) principle.
It will be noted that the chiasmus directly connects this with provision for the Levites (verse 27) confirming what we have seen in exodus to Numbers.
14.23 ‘And you shall eat before Yahweh your God, in the place which he shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, of your new wine, and of your oil, and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock, that you may learn to fear Yahweh your God always.’
And when the tithe was gathered some of it was to be eaten before Yahweh their God in the place which He has chosen to be, and where His name dwells in the Tabernacle so that they know that He is there. Within the holy area around that Tabernacle (‘the place’) they are permitted to partake of the tithe of grain and new wine and oil, of what belongs to Him. And there too they may partake of the firstlings of their herds and flocks, all of which are made holy to Yahweh.
It is quite clear from a consideration of the vast amount that would be involved that not all the tithes could be brought to the Tabernacle area once they were in the land. But that was not the intention, and the tithe of cattle and sheep is not even mentioned, unless it is seen as included in the reference to the firstlings (such tithing would certainly be required. Even from a practical point of view it is impossible to conceive that the grain farmers had to pay their tithes while the sheep farmers did not, or that anyone should suggest otherwise - see Leviticus 27.32 which confirms this). The intention here was that out of the tithed increase set apart for Yahweh, sufficient be brought for their feasting, which could be apportioned from their tithe, along with the firstlings. The remainder of the tithe would go to the Levites who were permitted to eat it anywhere (Numbers 18.31). The firstborn (bechor - masculine) were given to the priests and were at their disposal, but here it is made clear that some of the firstlings (bechorah - feminine, but probably covering all firstlings which were not seen as male ‘firstborn’) must be made available to those gathered at the feast. The priests and Levites in fact received an abundance of meat in one way or another, and this had probably already become the custom.
This was an expansion on the original purpose of the tithe arising as a result of the huge quantities that in future would be involved. It was now not only to be a means of maintaining the Levites, but was also to become a means of worship and eating in special thanksgiving.
14.24-26 ‘And if the way be too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it, because the place is too far from you which Yahweh your God shall choose, to set his name there, when Yahweh your God shall bless you, then shall you turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and shall go to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, and you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever your soul asks of you, and you shall eat there before Yahweh your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.’
Provision was, however, made for those who would have to bring such tithes a long way. To carry with them all the food for the feast would be a terrible burden. Thus they would be permitted to sell a portion of the tithe and take the money along to the feast where they would then be able to purchase sufficient for the feast. Then the whole household, and all the households present, would be able to feast to their heart’s desire with food obtained from the ample silver available from selling the tithe. This provision ties in with Leviticus 27.30-33 where the tithe could be redeemed for silver, although in that case it was being redeemed for general purposes and one fifth more than its value had to be paid, the whole then being passed to the Levites. Thus the fact that the tithe was Yahweh’s in both cases did not prevent it being dealt with in these ways. The silver became Yahweh’s instead.
Note the emphasis on the feast as being fully satisfying. The land is being portrayed as providing fullness of bliss. With Yahweh dwelling among them as He has chosen to do, how could it be otherwise? It is implanting the hope of a blessed future. It was in embryo pointing forward to the everlasting kingdom. Here more than anywhere else Israel was in its ‘proper sphere’. It was ‘clean’.
14.27 ‘And the Levite who is within your gates, you shall not forsake him, for he has no portion nor inheritance with you.’
But it was important that they must not forget the Levites. Permission to use some of the tithe at the feast did not relieve them of their responsibility to the Levites. The Levites must receive of their tithes as usual. They must not be forsaken. For this was their inheritance from Yahweh (Numbers 18.21), and they had no other portion or inheritance in the land. The assumption underlying this is the standard practise of giving tithes to the Levites. But in a speech such as this the details do not have to be spelled out, all would know their significance (another evidence that these are the direct words of Moses).
Provision For Those In Need In The Land of Plenty (14.28-15.6).
This section should be seen as a whole, and deals with thoughtfulness for the needy in the land of plenty. The whole is built on a seven year pattern, with a three year pattern incorporated. It probably means that on the third and sixth year of each seven year period the tithes had to be laid up for a special purpose. Otherwise there could come third years which conflicted with the seven years when no seed would have been grown. The way this is described without any introduction demonstrates that the seven year period was such an accepted fact based on Exodus 23.10-11; Leviticus 25.1-7 that it did not need to be defined.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ they are to store up their tithes in their own cities each third year and in the parallel, as a result, they will be able to store up wealth by lending to the nations. In ‘b’ the stored tithes are for the Levite and the poor (widows, orphans and resident aliens) and the result is that Yahweh their God will bless them in all that they do, and in the parallel there will be no poor (because of Yahweh’s abundant provision) and Yahweh their God will bless them as He has promised them. In ‘c’ there is to be a release for poverty-stricken debtors every seven years, and in the parallel the way in which this release will be arranged is described.
14.28-29 ‘At the end of every three years you shall bring forth all the tithe of your increase in the same year, and shall lay it up within your gates, and the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the resident alien, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within your gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied, that Yahweh your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.’
At the end of every three years the whole tithe of that year was to be laid up within their cities, and stored so as to feed the Levites and the poor of the land, including resident aliens, the fatherless, and widows. Each city was to provide for the needs of these types of people. This did not mean any lessening of the giving of the tithe to Yahweh, for the giver had to make a dedication to Yahweh of his tithe (26.12-15), but it gave it a wider purpose because of the greatly increased abundance of it. Even when all had eaten at the feasts, and all the Levites were satisfied, there would still be a surplus. Thus provision was now also made for the poor and needy.
In fact the Levites, as well as partaking, probably supervised the distribution over the three years or for as long as it lasted. In view of 15.1 this would presumably have been seen as part of the seven year cycle, with the tithes gathered in the third and sixth year, and the ‘sabbath of rest to the land’ in the seventh, when all could go into the fields and gather what grew there for themselves (Leviticus 25.6). Together with the gleanings at other times this would ensure that these needy ones were reasonably provided for.
Note how the tithes have now become a part of the place which Yahweh will choose to put His name there. They have become the evidence of fullness of blessing and the cause of rejoicing before Yahweh. And that blessing and rejoicing would also reach out to the Levites and the poor. The idea of the tithes has not diminished but has grown more magnificent.
Chapter 15 The Generosity Required To Those In Extreme Poverty and to Bondsmen Being Released, and The Requirement For Compassion In All Relationships.
Moses would expect that his reference to this three year cycle in 14.28 would bring to mind the Israelite way of considering the passage of time and therefore the provisions of the sabbath of rest for the land in the seventh year (Leviticus 25.1-7), and with this in mind he continues with the theme of helping the poorest in the land (14.28). In 14.28 he had declared that in the third year and the sixth year provision would be made through the tithe for the poor and needy, as symbolised by the fatherless, the widow and the resident alien (the last of whom would often be a refugee and in poverty, compare 23.15). Here he declares that in the seventh year, in the general year of release when the land was released from needing to be economically productive so that the poor may benefit from it (Exodus 23.11), there was also to be a ‘year of release’ for those who were in debt. The two go together. We must not read this reference to debt in the light of modern conditions. The expectation would be that when the people had entered the land and had been given land by Yahweh they would only need to borrow long term in cases of extreme need. Such borrowing would thus indicate real poverty. It is not thinking of someone borrowing in a commercial world.
And the main aim behind the provision was the relief of poverty, not in order to be a means of avoiding what was in honour due. It would be expected that most creditors would, in honour, honour their debts. It was those who could not do so who are in mind here. Thus not only was the seventh year to be a year in which the land could rest, and in which all could enjoy the fruits of the land because it was Yahweh’s land and Yahweh’s dispensation, but it was also to be a year of release for all in extreme poverty who were burdened with debt.
There is, in fact, a dispute as to whether the ‘release’ (‘a letting go’) mentioned here is a permanent release or simply a postponement, covering the seventh year. Some argue that during the seventh year, due to the rest given to the land (Exodus 23.10-11; Leviticus 25.2-7) there would be no produce from the land and no wages for working on other people’s land. They therefore suggest that the point here is that to have to repay a loan in that year would be difficult. Therefore postponement would be required. They point out that it would be different for a foreigner (in contrast with the resident alien) for he was not affected by the year of rest for the land. Thus a postponement was to be allowed to fellow-Israelites.
However in our view that is to miss the whole point of the passage which is to deal with extreme poverty. The mention of such a delay would have made sense in the midst of a general discussion of the seven year rest, or in a context dealing specifically with debt and how to deal with it, but not as such a forthright statement, standing on its own, as we have here in a context where poverty is stressed. The major point being dealt with here is the incompatibility of poverty with Yahweh’s giving of the land. A slight delay in repayment would hardly have much impact on that. But either way it is provided that lenders must not allow it to affect their attitude to needy borrowers (verse 7).
He next goes on to deal with the special need for generosity to ‘Hebrew bondsmen and women’ when they come to the end of their seven year contracts. There is the twofold connection here with what has gone before in the chapter, of generosity to the needy and a period of seven years in the seventh year of which would come release, although the seven year period is on a different basis. And he then finishes the chapter dealing with the question of the firstlings. This helps to bring his previous points home by reminding them how they themselves had been delivered from such poverty and bondage in Egypt, for their firstlings were Yahweh’s precisely because He had delivered them from bondage and spared their firstborn sons - Exodus 13.11-16). At the same time it puts all in the context of chapter 12 where their rejoicing before Yahweh in the place where he had chosen to dwell, because all was going well with them, included the consumption of the firstlings.
Thus it was because of their own deliverance from poverty and bondage that they were to consider those more unfortunate than themselves, and treat them well. Reference is also made to the fact that the firstlings too must be well treated and not put to labour prior to their being dedicated to Yahweh and passed over to the priests, although the major reason for that was really so that nothing could be taken from them prior to their presentation to Yahweh.
So the chapter reveals that the Israelite must show compassion to the needy debtor, to the Hebrew bondsman and woman, and to the firstlings, although as we have said the latter provision possibly more has in mind that the firstling shall be at its best for Yahweh, with nothing taken from it.
This reference to firstlings connects back to the reference to tithes in chapter 14, which with the firstlings are connected with the feasting before Yahweh at the place which He has chosen for Himself in chapter 12, thus connecting all in chapters 14-15 to chapter 12 and the worship at the sanctuary. These provisions are thus to be seen as sacred and necessary of fulfilment so that they can feast before Yahweh in His presence with a clear conscience.
Release From Debt For The Poor Of The Land (15.1-11).
(This whole chapter is ‘thou’).
15.1 ‘At the end of every seven years you (thou) shall make a release (literally ‘a letting go’; some translate ‘a postponement’).’
It is unfortunate that our chapter divisions hide the full sequence in which this verse comes. It is not the opening sentence to a new concept, but a continuation from 14.28. ‘At the end of every three years you shall --- at the end of every seven years you shall ---.’
So the provision for the poor and needy every three years is now added to. It should be noted that this verse is not primarily an attempt to refer to the legislation about the seven year sabbath, as though this was some new announcement of something previously unheard of. The stress is not on the seventh year as such, but on relief available to the poor in that seventh year, which is on top of the provision available to the poor in the third and sixth year. That is why the detail of the seven year sabbath is not gone into, it is assumed. As we have pointed out already, the problem with commencing a new chapter here is that we tend to see it as commencing a new subject. But 14.28-15.1 should be read together. It should be seen as reading, ‘at the end of three years you shall -- at the end of every seven years you shall --.’ (And the chiasmus confirms it). It is the idea of looking after the poor and needy which is being spoken of and continued.
It was not even intended to deal with general debt. Rather it was seeking to deal with the problem of debt for the poorest in the land. As with the three years it was a new announcement made on the verge of entering the land, making provision for the poor to be released from debt, for it was only when they had entered the land that men might find themselves in real hardship through debt. In the wilderness it was probably not such a problem.
But Moses recognised that the ownership of land, and the obligations and necessities connected with it, could bring problems with them, especially in times of shortage, which could put people into debt simply in trying to deal with them. So in the seventh year there was to be a ‘release’ (a ‘letting go’) from debt for those who were finding it hard to cope. Such freeing from debt and from debt-slavery at the behest of a king was known elsewhere and Hammurabi for one appears to have sought to legalise such freedom after three years service.
‘At the end of seven years.’ That is in the seventh year of the seven year cycle into which time for Israel was divided (as with the seven day cycle ending in the Sabbath, all was in sevens).
(It is clear that each ‘third year’ has to take the seventh year into account or there could have come a seventh year which coincided with a third year resulting in no tithes of grain for the poor. It is unlikely that that was intended. Thus ‘at the end of the third year’ probably signifies that the third and sixth year in each seven year cycle is in mind).
‘You shall make a release.’ There are a number of arguments for seeing this as indicating a permanent release.
It must be recognised at once that this coming release did not signify that no loans need ever be repaid. Most honest borrowers would in honour wish to repay their loan regardless of this Law. No doubt the poor man would wish he could repay it. It was more a provision for the extreme hardship of someone who through misfortune could not possibly repay it, whom Yahweh did not want burdened with it until it destroyed him.
In support of a reference to ‘postponement only’ is the significance of the seventh year elsewhere. There it was a year of rest from something (Leviticus 25.3-7; Exodus 23.10-11) which would recommence again in the following year. But that is a very different thing from the situation of a man in poverty. There the land would be properly rested and start again afresh. The debtor would not start again afresh, he would simply dread the end of the seventh year. Against the idea of postponement is the better parallel of the year of Yubile where the land was completely released back to its original owner.
It could be argued that reference to a mere postponement would also make more commercial sense. However the latter is no strong argument for in Israel borrowing and lending was not to be seen as commercial. No interest was to be charged. It was to be a goodwill gesture to those in need. And the attitude of commercialism is specifically guarded against (verse 9).
The unwillingness of people to lend if they knew that they would not receive it back might be a better argument, but that is actually what verse 9 is all about. It declares that Israelites must be willing to lend even in spite of this release and the danger of losing their silver, because of what Yahweh would otherwise think about a man in destitution, left unaided, a position that would be a major slight on Him. It is difficult to see how a mere year’s delay could cause such unwillingness to lend. (Someone who felt such reluctance about a mere delay would be doing their best not to have to lend it anyway).
Nor was the release necessarily of the full debt. It could well be that the borrower had already provided some service to the lender for the privilege of borrowing, such as free part time labour or a portion of produce or some other service. That would be at least some recompense. And the idea is then that the remainder was to be cancelled out of charitable considerations and because Yahweh would be pleased. They were to be satisfied with receiving but a part rather than the whole.
However, the context clearly does suggest that this is a major concession, and is made because of unexpected poverty in the land, which should not be there, and that the lender therefore has the assurance that God will recompense him as the debtor cannot. This points beyond a mere postponement. It would seem to point to full release. The stress is really on the eradication of poverty rather than mere release from debt.
15.2-3 ‘And this is the manner of the release. Every creditor shall release that which he has lent to his neighbour; he shall not exact it of his neighbour and his brother, because Yahweh’s release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release.’
The release is to be granted to neighbours and brothers, not to foreigners. Again we must recognise that such borrowing between Israelites would only take place under circumstances of real need. It was not in that sense a ‘borrowing’ society. Thus the probability is that if the person had been unable to pay it back by the seventh year it would indicate deep poverty. That is why Yahweh in His goodness proclaims freedom from the debt. It was not a rogue’s charter, and the creditor, who was presumably himself doing well, was to willingly forego the debt, recognising the great need of the debtor, because he was grateful for what Yahweh had given to him.
15.4-5 ‘Howbeit there shall be no poor with you, (for Yahweh will surely bless you in the land which Yahweh your God is giving to you for an inheritance to possess it), if only you diligently listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to observe to do all this commandment which I command you this day.’
A further reason for the release is that the need for it would only arise if Israel had been disobedient to Yahweh. For if they listened diligently to His voice, to observe all the commandments given by Moses, there would be no poor, and therefore no borrowers, among them, for Yahweh would then bless the land, which He had given them as an inheritance that they could possess, to such an extent that poverty would be ruled out. Thus the fact that there was a debtor would indicate Israel’s failure, and release of the debtor would be a kind of partial atonement for that failure.
However, the chiasmus clearly brings out that the reason that there will be no poor will be because of God’s blessing of the land so that the third year tithe will be of such munificence that there will be sufficient for all, and none will be poor. But this will only be so if they are faithful to the covenant so that God blesses the land.
15.6 ‘For Yahweh your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you.’
Indeed if they were truly faithful to Him and His covenant, and laid up their tithes as Yahweh decreed, Yahweh would so bless them that as a nation they would never need to borrow, while at the same time having so much in abundance that they would be in a position to lend to other nations. They would store up abundance of wealth for themselves. They would be creditors not debtors. Furthermore because of their wealth they would rule over many nations, for wealth brings power, but none would ever rule over them. This was the glittering future promised under the kingly rule of Yahweh that would follow true response and obedience.
Such statements could only have been made by someone looking forward to such a glorious future as a possible reality in response to obedience. It would have required cynicism indeed for someone to have made them once the land had sunk into its later low level existence, with a miserable record behind it, a cynicism that could never have produced the book of Deuteronomy with its strong morality, its vibrancy and its glorious awareness of Yahweh. And there is no suggestion here that it will arise from Yahweh’s cataclysmic intervention. This is in contrast with the later prophets. It positively demands that Moses is speaking prior to entry into the land.
The Poverty-stricken Debtor Is Not To Be Despised (15.7-11).
Having laid down the law for the relief of debtors the question of those who might seek to avoid it is now raised. They are not to seek to avoid their responsibility, otherwise Yahweh will be displeased and will act accordingly.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note than it ‘a’ a poor man is posited ‘in your land’ and in the parallel the poor will never cease out of the land, but they are to be generous to them ‘in your land’. In ‘b’ they are not to harden their hearts to such but must lend them all they need, and in the parallel they must give without grieving because for this very reason Yahweh will bless the work of their hands. In ‘c’ they must not view the seventh year with a cynical eye, and thus in the parallel avoid assisting the poor creditor, for Yahweh will see it and count it as a covenant sin against them.
15.7-10 ‘If there be with you a poor man, one of your brethren, within any of your gates in your land which Yahweh your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall surely open your hand to him, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which he wants. Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying, “The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,” and your eye be evil against your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to Yahweh against you, and it be sin to you. You shall surely give him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because that for this thing Yahweh your God will bless you in all your work, and in all that you put your hand to.’
This is a powerful demand. While looking at it only theoretically, and as a mental exercise away from the real world, this could be seen as having in mind postponement of a debt for one year as being something that hindered the lender from lending. But the realities of life and the depth of argument in fact demand that the sacrifice required is seen as something much greater. Postponement of a debt for one year would quite frankly hardly have such an influence as this. It would be shrugged off as slightly unfortunate but not too much of a problem.
The whole point here is that the creditor is required to face up to something more extreme, to go beyond what would seem reasonable, and is required to make a financial loss, because his ‘brother’ is poor, and because Yahweh is watching and may be appealed to, and because Yahweh Himself will reward him for willingly doing so. It is to be an exercise in loyalty and in compassion.
Once again we must reiterate that the reference is to a would be borrower who is in desperate straits. He is a ‘poor man’, a ‘poor brother’, who comes and appeals to the heart. And the point being made is that no godly Israelite could possibly close his heart to such a person, even though it involved real loss, for that would be un-Yahwehlike. To such they must not be tight-fisted but must be open-handed and lend whatever is needed at whatever reasonable cost. To do otherwise would put them in the wrong with Yahweh. Indeed to make such a refusal would be seen as a response to someone’s desperation that could only be made by someone utterly callous and totally ungodly. It would count before Yahweh as a sin against the covenant. Yet if the only thing against making the loan was that repayment would only be delayed for a year, it would hardly be seen as so big a matter. It is not seriously likely that any reasonable and serious lender would suggest a refusal for that reason.
The point of the proximity of the seven year release being seen as affecting the would be creditor in this way is precisely because of the likelihood that the loan will still be outstanding at that time, and that therefore the silver will be lost. But to take that into account, says Moses, would, in God’s eyes, be evil. It would reveal a hardened heart and a mean spirit. And Moses warns that the man himself may cry to Yahweh against such a person because he has proved himself unwilling to obey the covenant, and it will be counted as a breach of covenant, a ‘sin’. He will be revealed for what he is. Thus he will lose the blessing of Yahweh. Rather he must be willing to suffer loss, aware that Yahweh knows, and aware that because of it Yahweh will bless all he puts his hand to. He will recover it a hundredfold. It is a response of faith and loyalty.
15.11 ‘For the poor will never cease out of the land. Therefore I command you, saying, “You shall surely open your hand to your brother, to your needy, and to your poor, in your land.’
Again it is emphasised that we are dealing with a loan to the poor. For the practical truth is that the poor will never cease out of the land. The promise of verse 4 was very true, but it was dependent on a condition that would never be fulfilled, and was to be alleviated by the third year tithe. Moses, and God, knew the heart of man too well. Moses was no dewy-eyed optimist. He had already made clear his opinion of those he was speaking to. They were ‘stiff-necked’ (9.6). But at least, he says, let them not be stiffnecked in this.
Thus the command came that they must be open-handed to their fellow-countrymen, both to the needy, and to the poor, and that at the end of every seven year period all debt owed by the poor should be cancelled. This was to be out of compassion for them, out of loyalty to Yahweh, and because the poverty was in the end the fault of all Israel.
The result of these provisions in 14.28-15.11 would be that no one in Israel would be left destitute, neither the helpless resident aliens, the fatherless and widows, nor the families hit by extreme poverty through circumstance not of their own choosing. There would be no ‘poor’, for all would be provided for.
The lesson for us is clear. We are to be concerned at the poverty of others and be willing to do what we can to help to alleviate that poverty, even making sacrifices in order to be able to do so. Indeed in many countries the laws of bankruptcy result in someone unable to repay a debt being finally released from it.
This glowing picture of a land where the poor were fully provided for (13.28-29), and where debtors were treated with such compassion, fits neatly into their looking to the place which Yahweh Himself will choose. The third (and sixth) year, together with the seventh year will be a manifestation of the glorious covenant between Yahweh and the people who have received His inheritance. What a contrast it would be with the ways of the Canaanites who were to be destroyed.
Release Of Hebrew Bondsmen and Bondswomen (15.12-18).
Similar generosity must be shown to ‘Hebrew bondsmen and bondswomen’ when they are released after their seven year contract. What follows is not simply the law relating to such as in Exodus 21.1 onwards, most of which is ignored, it is rather an emphasising of attitudes of heart, both the generous attitude which must be shown to the bondspeople when they leave service, and the wonderful relationship that could have been built up between maser and servant which went even beyond that. And while Exodus 21 has in mind a foreign Habiru, here Moses is speaking of a ‘brother or sister’, an Israelite or circumcised proselyte. The emphasis is all on the generosity and love which will be pleasing to Yahweh when they come to Him in worship.
The phrase ‘Hebrew bondsman’ is an unusual one in the context of the Pentateuch so firstly we must consider what is meant by a Hebrew bondsman. Early Israel never thought of themselves as Hebrews. That idea came very much later. They were called Hebrews by outsiders and would refer to themselves as Hebrews when speaking to outsiders, but it was not a name they ordinarily applied to themselves (see Genesis 14.13; 39.14, 17; 41.12; Exodus 1.15-2.13). Abram was ‘the Hebrew’ to the people who composed the covenant described in Genesis 14. Joseph was ‘a Hebrew’ in Potiphar’s house and to the chief butler. The children of Israel were ‘Hebrews’ to Pharaoh. The Philistines described the Israelites as ‘Hebrews’ (1 Samuel 4.6, 9; etc.). But in all cases the description related to the view of outsiders. It was not a name that Yahweh would apply to them or that they would apply to themselves in internal affairs. Why then is it used in this Law?
In fact it is probable that the reason foreigners saw Israel as ‘Hebrews’ was because they linked them with the landless and stateless peoples known as ‘Habiru’. The term Habiru had a long history but in all cases it referred to those who were perceived as landless and stateless, (or were insultingly to be described as such), until at some stage some settled down just as Israel did. They could be mercenaries, slaves, shepherds, miners etc. but they stood out as belonging to no country, and as being ‘have-nots’. This was why Israel were seen as Habiru by others, (although it is possible that they themselves much later took the name and altered it to ‘Hebrew’ in their writings to connect back to their ancestor Eber, making it respectable. There is, however, a slight difference etymologically even then. But the ‘coincidence’ is too striking to be ignored in the light of the Scripture we have considered).
This being so this would suggest that the Hebrew bondsman or bondswoman who are in mind in Exodus 21 are such persons, landless and stateless persons who have been bought into bondage by an Israelite, either through purchase or through a slave contract. They are persons of no status. It is quite probable that there were many such ‘Hebrew’ bondspeople who escaped among the children of Israel, for they had been in Egypt where such bondspeople were available. Here in Deuteronomy the idea is expanded to recognising that there might be Israelite ‘Hebrews’, or the idea may be of Habiru who have been circumcised and thus have become ‘brothers’.
Note first that they could only be enslaved for six years. This was stated to be because the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and should therefore remember and be merciful as they have received mercy (15.12). But it is significant in this regard that at Nuzi we learn that ‘Hapiru’ there similarly entered into limited servitude, limited to seven years, after which their obligation ended. Thus there seems to have been a general custom that Habiru/Hapiru contracts were for seven years. The point therefore being stressed here is that the seventh year of service must not be required of them in view of Israel’s own deliverance from bondage.
So Israel were to be more generous. While theirs was also a seven year contract, they were to give him the seventh year free so that his obligation finished after six years, by this mean taking into account the principles of the Sabbath.
Thus the seven year contract for Hapiru/Habiru seems to have been a general custom of the time. As is pointed out in 15.18 this was double the normal length of service for an Israelite. Three years are the years of a hired servant (Isaiah 16.14).
However here in Deuteronomy Moses is looking at a slightly different situation than that in Exodus 21 for in contrast this man or woman are seen as a ‘brother/sister’, and are not described as ‘slaves’. It is not the six years or the seven years that is in mind here but the attitude when the persons are released.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the Hebrew servant is to be released after only six years of the seven, and in the parallel the master must not be annoyed about this for he has had a good six years of service from him and he can know that Yahweh his God will bless him for it. In ‘b’ he must let him go well provided for, and in the parallel if the servant does not wish to go free because he loves the household he may be indentured ‘for ever’, and that will be equal to him as being well provided for. In ‘c’ and its parallel this will be because they remember that they were bondsmen in the land of Egypt and were redeemed by Yahweh from it. That is why Yahweh feels that He can justly demand this ‘favour’.
15.12 ‘If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold to you, and serve you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.’
‘Brother’ need not always indicate an Israelite. The term can be used of any close relationship such as there would be here. But in Deuteronomy ‘brother’ does almost always refer to an Israelite, (although Edom is called a brother - 23.7), and especially in this chapter, sometimes even being contrasted with the ‘foreigner’. Thus it would seem that we have here the unfortunate example of an Israelite man or woman (or a proselyte) who had fallen on such hard times that they had become the equivalent of a Habiru even in Israelite eyes, and were being treated as such. They had lost their land and were seen as a kind of refugee, having had to sell themselves into bondage under a seven year bond.
We should note that there were a variety of different forms of service in Israel (and among their neighbours). Putting it simply these included hired servants, debt slaves who had to work off a debt by a period of service, and people who entered into a bond to perform service for a certain period in return for an initial payment or a guarantee of a livelihood or some other basis of obligation (bondsmen). The Habiru often survived in this way so that ‘a Hebrew man’ probably means that this man was taken on on the same basis as a Habiru. Then there were foreign slaves who were purchased or captured, and so on. The position of these last was permanent. But Leviticus 25.39-41 says that no Israelite must be enslaved by another Israelite. He may be purchased but he must be treated as though he were a hired servant and released in the year of Yubile. There the idea was of a permanent ‘slavery’ situation, but somewhat ameliorated because the person was an Israelite. That is different from here.
This person is seen as under a typical Habiru seven year contract, but because he/she is an Israelite (either trueborn or proselyte) they are not called slaves (in contrast with Exodus 21), while still having the same responsibilities. They presumably had to be treated as a hired servant as in the provision in Leviticus 25. But this was a different type of obligation from that in Leviticus. It was simply a seven year bond, although as in Leviticus the word ‘slave’ was not used. The fact that he/she was an Israelite (including proselytes) would explain why nothing needed to be said about wife and children on his departure. They would, as a family, already be within the covenant (contrast the position in Exodus 21), and therefore would not need to be divided. They would be released with him/her, for when they went out it would not be outside the covenant situation. In Exodus a non-member of the covenant was in mind, which was why the issue of what happened to his wife and children became important.
But the point is that here this Israelite is being bound by a standard Habiru contract to serve for seven years, although in fact because of the sabbath laws he/she will only be required to serve six years. He/she is to be let free in the seventh year.
15.13-14 ‘And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty, you shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, and out of your threshing-floor, and out of your winepress: as Yahweh your God has blessed you, you shall give to him.’
But because he is a brother/sister, when he is released he must be amply provided for with food of all kinds, on a level consonant with the wealth of the master who releases him. The master must give as Yahweh has blessed him and provide for him liberally with ample food and wine to take with him. He must not go away empty.
15.15 ‘And you will remember that you were a bondsman in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you, therefore I command you this thing today.’
And the master will do this generously because he will remember that he himself had been a bondsman in the land of Egypt, and that he himself had been delivered by Yahweh Who had bought him out of his bondage. In gratitude he will be as generous as Yahweh has been to him. It is this generosity to his bondsman that is the major emphasis here. It will bring pleasure to Yahweh.
15.16 ‘And it shall be, if he say to you, “I will not go out from you,” because he loves you and your house, because he is well with you,’
However, even an Israelite bondsman/woman may prefer such service to being released and having to face the world. We must not compare this with slavery as known in the last few hundred years. In those days such people could hold high and privileged positions and be seen as one of the family. They may well prefer to remain in their cosy sinecure. In that case they could request to become an ‘ebed ‘olam (a perpetual henchman), regularly someone of value and importance. Such slaves were known from elsewhere and are mentioned at Ugarit. This might especially appeal to an older person without family, or someone who might find it difficult to build a life on the ‘outside’. They would have a place for life in a satisfactory environment, loving and being loved.
Note here that in contrast with Exodus 21 the reason for wanting to stay is love for the master. It is totally amicable and with no constraint. There was no danger in this case (in the case of the bondsman) of him not being able to take his wife with him, for both would continue within the covenant (see for this our commentary on Exodus). But he does not want to go out because he loves his master.
15.17 ‘Then you shall take an awl, and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant for ever. And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise.’
This ceremony is paralleled in Exodus 21 but there it is an official one before justices. It may in fact also be so here, but if it is Moses does not mention it. It may, however, be that because he/she is an Israelite it could be more informal. The fastening of the ear to the door represented him/her as becoming a member of the household for ever. He/she had been permanently adopted into the household. All would recognise their ‘attachment’ to the household.
15.18 ‘It shall not seem hard to you, when you let him go free from you, for to the double (or ‘equivalence’) of the hire of a hireling has he served you six years, and Yahweh your God will bless you in all that you do.’
On the other hand if the person opts for freedom, the contract being ended, the master must not be grudging about it. He has after all performed double the service of a hired servant (three years - Isaiah 16.14). Or it may mean ‘the equivalent service of a hired servant’. And the master is promised that Yahweh will see his generous attitude and bless him in all he does.
The point behind all this is the generosity of spirit that must be shown, especially to fellow-members of the covenant, which will be pleasing to Yahweh, especially when worshipping at the Central Sanctuary, a matter which Moses now returns to. It goes along with their having been chosen by Yahweh and redeemed from bondage.
Not many of us have Habiru bondsmen whom we have to release. But many do release people who have been working for them for years, and all of us are sometimes obliged to people for service performed. The principle is that we too should be generous when the situation ceases.
The Consumption of the Firstborn Males in Worship Before Yahweh (15.19-23).
Moses now reintroduces the firstborn males. These are Yahweh’s because He spared them on the night of the Passover and they must therefore be sacrificed to Him, with the meat originally going to the priests. They can therefore actually represent poor people and bondsmen before Yahweh, for they represented the firstborn who were spared in Egypt who were in such a situation (Exodus 13.2, 11-16), thus they fit very suitably here in a context of ‘the poor’. And in eating them before Yahweh, along with their servants and bondservants, the people will be assuring Him that they are being generous to the poor and to those of their brothers who experience bondage, as well as rejoicing in their own deliverance.
For fuller details with respect to firstborn males see also Exodus 34.19-20; Numbers 18.15-18; Leviticus 27.26-27. A ‘firstborn’ (bechor) from this point of view is the first male young ‘that opened the womb’ born to cattle, sheep or goats. Other ‘firstling’ males, born first in a new season but not firstborn, together with firstling females born first in a new season, or being actually firstborn but females, could be firstfruits (Exodus 22.30). Still others would be included within the tithing system whereby one out of ten who went under the rod were Yahweh’s (Leviticus 27.32-33). How these three interrelated is not made clear, but would have been well known to the priests and Levites. (12.6, 17 are feminine and presumably refer to firstlings and not male firstborn).
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the firstborn males are set apart in holiness to Yahweh, and in the parallel the blood is especially set apart to Yahweh. In ‘b’ its ‘unblemished state’ must be preserved by not working with it or shearing it and it must be eaten before Yahweh their God in the place which He chooses, and in the parallel if it is blemished they may eat it in their cities and not sacrifice it to Yahweh their God.
15.19 ‘All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall sanctify to Yahweh your God. You shall do no work with the firstborn of your herd, nor shear the firstling of your flock.’
The recognised responsibility is reasserted here. All the firstborn males born to herd or flock, that is the first male young that opened their womb, were to be seen as holy to Yahweh, being separated off for Him so that they could be taken to the place where Yahweh had chosen to dwell, to be presented to Him. And they were so seriously ‘holy’ (separated off to Yahweh as His) that no personal advantage was to be taken of them. No work must be done with them and they were not to be sheared. They must be kept pure from earthly activity. They were Yahweh’s right from the start and were to be treated as such. They were in total contrast with the poor and the bondspeople who both had to work, and metaphorically could be ‘fleeced’. But those who ate the firstborn would remember what they themselves had been and how Yahweh had spared their firstborns and would behave rightly to the poor.
Exodus 22.30 says that the firstborn must be given to Yahweh on the eighth day as soon as they were weaned. They were then ‘made holy’. From that point on they were separated off as Yahweh’s. That is why they were not to be worked or sheared. Leviticus 27.26-27 stresses that they could not be sanctified by man. This was because as they already belonged to Yahweh and were therefore already sanctified they could not be further sanctified so as to make them a freewill gift or in respect of an oath. They were already Yahweh’s. Numbers 18.15-18 declares that when offered on the altar the flesh was to be the priests. They were at their disposal. It was thus probably due to expanding herds and flocks and their subsequent fruitfulness that the level of meat available became so large that the priests made much of it available to those households which brought them to the Central Sanctuary, for none who were clean and were there to worship ‘before Yahweh’ were anywhere forbidden to eat of the firstborns. As Yahweh’s people they were holy and could thus partake of holy things of this level of holiness.
15.20 ‘You shall eat it before Yahweh your God year by year in the place which Yahweh shall choose, you and your household.’
So the firstborns were to be taken to the Sanctuary year by year, in the year that they were born, by a household representative, and presented to Yahweh in the place which Yahweh would choose, there to be offered as a sacrifice (although that is not mentioned in Deuteronomy. It is the eating that is the emphasis in Deuteronomy), after which they and their household could receive a share of them from the priests and consume them before Yahweh in a joyous religious feast in the place to which Yahweh had chosen to welcome them. And they could do it with a clear conscience because they had treated the poor well.
15.21-22 ‘And if it have any blemish, as if it be lame or blind, any ill blemish whatsoever, you shall not sacrifice it to Yahweh your God, you shall eat it within your gates, the unclean and the clean shall eat it alike, as the gazelle, and as the hart.’
However, if the firstborn turned out to be blemished prior to this, whether through lameness, or blindness, or any other blemish whatsoever, it must not be taken to the sanctuary and presented before Yahweh, or be sacrificed to Him, it must be eaten at home (within their gates), and in this case both clean and unclean could partake of it for it is like the gazelle and the hart, clean, eatable but no longer sacred. The impression given, however, is that there was not the alternative of it being retained. It must be eaten. For it had at one stage been set apart to Yahweh.
The reason why something blemished could not be offered to Yahweh is the same as that which excludes the ‘unclean’. It was because they came short of perfection. To offer them to Yahweh or bring them to Yahweh would thus be an insult, for He is deserving of the very best. It is not that God looks with disfavour on the blemished, it is that man should not even consider offering such. The principle stresses to all men the perfection of God, and that only the best should be offered to Him.
15.23 ‘Only you shall not eat its blood, you shall pour it out on the ground as water.’
But as always the blood must not be eaten or drunk. It must be poured out on the ground to Yahweh like an offering of water.
The lesson for us from the firstlings is that just as Israel gave of the first of all they received to God because He had delivered them from Egypt, only to receive some back again, so must we give the first of all we receive in gratitude to God, looking to Him to discover what we should do with it. The practise may need to be worked out, but the principle is clear, gratitude for what He gives us, and gratitude especially for His great Deliverance in Jesus Christ for which we should be willing to give Him all things.
We should note now that there has been a constant theme which has been running through the last four chapters. In chapter 12 the thought was of coming to the place which Yahweh would choose where they would joyfully worship Him. Chapter 13 gave the warning against turning from this joyous situation by listening to deviant voices. Chapter 14 warned against those who enjoyed such joyful worship spoiling themselves by contact with what was unwholesome, and then stressed the need for provision to all the needy. Chapter 15 has warned against allowing the land to be defiled by wrong attitudes to the poor, and by allowing the poor to suffer. All this has then been summed up by their partaking of the firstlings in joyous worship, the firstlings which in themselves represented those who had themselves been in bondage. They can partake of such with joy because in their lives they are revealing the true spirit of Yahweh.
The Three Great Feasts (16.1-17).
Moses now reminded them that every year Israel were to gather at the three great feasts, Passover, Sevens (Weeks or Harvest) and Tabernacles (or Ingathering/Booths). (See Exodus 23.14-17; 34.23. Compare for details Exodus 12; Leviticus 23.4-38; Numbers 28.16-29.39). This can be compared with the gathering of under-kings to make regular submission to their overlords and offer tribute, often required in treaties. Every adult male in Israel was to be present. Again the idea of joyous worship is stressed (16.11, 14).
That all males were to appear in the place of His choosing three times a year 'before Yahweh' or to 'see the face of Yahweh' is constantly emphasised (Exodus 23.17; 34.23) This was in fact necessary in order to maintain the unity of the tribes and in order to maintain their covenant with God. This probably means all males who were ‘of age’. We are not told about the logistics. They would spread over available land. The weak and infirm together with male children were probably not included in 'all males'.
But all, including women and children, were welcome at the feasts, especially Weeks and Tabernacles (16.1-14). It is interesting that wives are not mentioned although daughters (unmarried) and widows are (verses 11, 14). Perhaps the wives were to stay behind to look after the farms (compare 3.19, although that was a call to arms, also contrast Deuteronomy 29.11 where wives were specifically mentioned). But it is more likely that the wives were simply seen as one with their husbands, as elsewhere (e.g. 5.14) and that their presence was thus assumed, not because they were not considered important, but because they were of equal importance with their husbands. God's promise was that none would invade during these times (Exodus 34.23-24).
As these feasts were at times of harvest such times would tend not to be danger periods as all nations would be gathering their own harvests and celebrating their own feasts and would be too busy to make war. (Note 2 Samuel 11.1 which indicates that there were certain times for invading). Of course the assumption is that the whole land would belong to Israel as other nations would have been driven out (if Israel had been obedient). This was different from the call to arms which could happen at any time when danger threatened or tribal matters had to be sorted out (Judges 20.1).
With these regulations given with regard to the three great feasts we come to an end of this worship section of the speech. No mention is made of the great Day of Atonement, nor of lesser feasts. This is not a general giving of the Law. It is a speech given to the people to encourage them and prepare them for their direct responsibilities in connection with entering the land and possessing it.
Deuteronomy generally avoids what mainly involves the priests and priestly functions. That information Moses has dealt with in other records. Even in dealing with uncleanness it has concentrated only on what the people had to make positive choices about with regard to it. And when he deals with priests and Levites in chapter 18 it is in order to describe the people’s duties with regard to them. It is this emphasis which explains why he never actually clearly and specifically differentiates between the responsibilities of priests and Levites, although once one accepts the differentiation given elsewhere it is clear where he does differentiate them.
It will be noted that little detail is given as to how the feasts are to be observed from the priests’ point of view. Apart from the bare bones, all the concentration is on the aspects connected with the people. Thus at the feast of Passover and unleavened bread the actual sacrificing is seen as performed by the people and then partaken of, and the matter of the leaven is dwelt on more fully, while in the other feasts the sacrificial offerings are ignored and all the emphasis is on joyful participation in the feasting.
(The whole chapter is ‘thou’ throughout).
The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (16.1-8).
Here the whole feast is called the Passover (in verse 17 it is called the feast of unleavened bread). It is celebrated in the month of Abib (the ancient name for Nisan), ‘the month of the ripening ears’. Its name probably dates back to the patriarchs and their sojourn in Canaan. It came around March/April, commencing at the new moon. First came the strict Passover, which was celebrated on the afternoon of 14th of Abib by the slaying of lambs, with the feast going on overnight to the following morning at the time of the full moon. This was then followed by the seven days of unleavened bread, 15th-21st of Abib, beginning with a festal sabbath and ending on a festal sabbath. (There could thus be three sabbaths during the seven days, the two festal sabbaths and the weekly Sabbath).
The Description of the Feast (16.1-6).
Analysis in the words of Moses:
In ‘a’ they are to observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover to Yahweh your God, for in the month of Abib Yahweh their God brought them out of Egypt by night, and in the parallel they will sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that they came forth out of Egypt. In ‘b’ they are to sacrifice the Passover to Yahweh their God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which Yahweh shall choose, to cause His name to dwell there, and in the parallel they may not sacrifice the Passover within any of their gates, which Yahweh their God gives them, but at the place which Yahweh their God chooses, to cause his name to dwell in. In ‘c’ they are not to eat leavened bread with it (‘it’ here means the whole round of sacrifices at this feast, for in what follows ‘it’ is eaten for seven days, and above it includes cattle); for seven days they must eat unleavened bread with it, even the bread of affliction, for they ‘came forth out of the land of Egypt’ in fearful haste, and in the parallel it is so that they may remember the day when they came forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of their lives and there was therefore no leaven to be seen within all their borders for seven days, neither was any of the flesh, which they sacrificed the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
It will be observed therefore that the final two verses describing the Passover actually pass over into the Feast of Sevens Yet it is also clear that they closely connect with 16.1-6, which they assume. The passage goes on smoothly, but there is here at this point the flicker of a movement on in the mind of the speaker, rather than in 16.9. (We must beware of allowing our division into sections to make us think that Moses was preaching in sections. He was not. Thus could he have two chiasmi where the subjects run into each other).
16.1-2 ‘Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover to Yahweh your God, for in the month of Abib Yahweh your God brought you out of Egypt by night. And you shall sacrifice the passover to Yahweh your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which Yahweh shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there.’
The Passover was observed on 14th of Abib but no mention of that is made here. Nor are the other feasts specifically dated. Moses did not want to state the obvious. This is a further indication of Mosaic ‘authorship’. A later writer would probably have felt it necessary to date the events more specifically. ‘Observe the month --’ may signify all the different religious days in it, thus the opening new moon day on the 1st of Abib, the setting aside of the lambs/kids on the 10th, and the weekly Sabbaths, as well as Passover itself including the feast of unleavened bread with its special sabbaths on the opening and closing days. The whole month was seen as important because it was the month of deliverance, and Moses wanted it to be well remembered.
The Passover night, with the lamb (or kid) having been slain towards evening, was itself a feast of remembrance as through the night they partook of the lamb along with bitter herbs and unleavened bread and during it would go through the question and answer ritual connected with the Passover (Exodus 12.26-27). It was a reminder of how Yahweh had brought them out of Egypt ‘by night’, that is, in dark times.
‘And you shall sacrifice the passover to Yahweh your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which Yahweh shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there.’ But there had been, or was now to be, a change in the pattern. On the actual Passover night the lambs had been slain within the houses and the blood put on the doorposts. Now the sacrificing of the Passover lambs was to take place at ‘the place which God shall choose, to cause His name to dwell there’. Leaving their homes they were all to come together to sacrifice in His presence, at the place to which He Himself had chosen to come and dwell. He wanted to be a part with them in their celebrations, and they were His sons (14.1) gathered at His earthly home. But it would still also be a family affair for the actual eating would take place in households gathered around the sanctuary in the place of Yahweh’s choice. There is no mention of priestly participation, but they would almost certainly apply the blood to the altar.
In fact this alteration of the Passover celebration was necessary so that the seven days that followed could be one of the triad of feasts at the Central Sanctuary.
We note here, however, that ‘the sacrifice’ mentioned in the verse was to be ‘from the flock and from the herd’. This was different from the Passover offering which was to be a lamb or kid. Was this then a change in the ritual? The fact is that this is probably not intended to indicate that the specific Passover sacrifice could be an ox bull instead of a lamb, it rather probably means that by the phrase ‘sacrificing the Passover’ Moses is indicating all the offerings and sacrifices that would take place over the eight days of the Passover, which would include both ox bulls and lambs.
This would seem to be confirmed by verse 3 which indicates that ‘keep the Passover’ is seen as including the whole seven days of the feast that follows. The whole was to be observed ‘to Yahweh their God’, that is in honour of Him, in recognition of Him and in accordance with what He had laid down. For details see Exodus 12; 23.14-17; Leviticus 23.5-8; Numbers 28.16-25.
16.3 ‘You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat unleavened bread with it, even the bread of affliction, for you came forth out of the land of Egypt in fearful haste, that you may remember the day when you came forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life.’
‘With it’, that is with ‘the sacrifice of the Passover’ they were to eat no leavened bread, and ‘with it’ they were to eat unleavened bread for seven days. If they can eat unleavened bread ‘with it’ for seven days (and the Passover sacrifice’s remains must not be kept once morning breaks of Passover night) this seems to confirm that ‘sacrificing the Passover’ covers all the sacrifices over the eight days (note also ‘the first day at even’ in verse 4 which suggests that the whole feast was seen as one). Compare 2 Chronicles 35.1-19 where keeping of the Passover also included both feasts, the whole being called ‘Passover’. The unleavened bread was a symbol of the speed and anxiety with which they had left Egypt ‘in fearful haste’ without having time to leaven the bread, but was also to be seen as ‘the bread of affliction’, suggesting that in some way their bondage had meant that they regularly had to use unleavened bread. All this was to be repeated yearly so that they would remember that day when they came out of Egypt all their lives.
Besides the actual memorial there was behind this much symbolism beyond that which has been mentioned. Leaven was a symbol of corruption, which was why it was excluded from grain offerings, and the removal of all leaven from the whole country was therefore a symbol of the need for them to be free from corruption. Even those who could not come to the feast had to observe the prohibition of leaven.
It is very possible that the feast of unleavened bread was already an ancient feast, probably in that case going back to the time of the patriarchs in Canaan, for they would unquestionably have celebrated religious feasts at different important times of the year as all their neighbours did, both to celebrate lambing and to celebrate harvests of various kinds, and once established these would have carried on through the centuries in the old way even though the move to Egypt resulted in different seasons. People did not easily relinquish old customs which were treasured and passed on from one generation to another. And the full moon feast in the month of Abib was probably one such. There is, however, no evidence for this, and no hint in the records of it (lambing was not at this time in the Ancient Near East). Whether the same was true of Passover is debatable. That was probably a new addition to an old feast because of the night of deliverance, but opinions differ even on that (although it is all simply educated guesswork).
‘Seven days.’ The ‘seven day’ feast was a regular concept, for ‘seven’ emphasised its divine perfection. This feast was in total for seven and a bit days (the afternoon of the 14th to the eve of the 21st), described as ‘seven’ for the reason mentioned. The feast of Tabernacles was also a seven day feast.
16.4 ‘And there shall be no leaven seen with you in all your borders seven days, neither shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.’
Indeed all leaven was to be excluded from all dwellings within their borders for ‘seven days’, and no flesh of the Passover lamb, which was sacrificed in the ‘evening’ (mid-afternoon before twilight) of the first day and consumed during the night, must remain until the morning of the 15th. It must either all be eaten or burned with fire (Exodus 12.10). This last was because of its holiness, and because it must all be connected with ‘that day’. Burning with fire took it to Yahweh.
16.5-6 ‘You may not sacrifice the passover within any of your gates, which Yahweh your God gives you, but at the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell in, there you shall sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that you came forth out of Egypt.’
It is stressed again that they must not sacrifice the Passover in their own cities or towns ‘given to them by Yahweh’, but must sacrifice it at the place which Yahweh their God has chosen as the place where His name might dwell. It must be sacrificed before Him and enjoyed in His presence. The clear purpose here is that the feast would be a perpetual living again of that night of deliverance lived out in the very presence of Yahweh, their Overlord.
Note the emphasis on the fact that their cities will have been given to them by Yahweh (verse 5). Some in Transjordan have already been received. Thus the deliverance of the Passover will have finally resulted in full possession of the land. They would have much to celebrate.
If these details were written as a guide to keeping the Passover ‘week’ it fails miserably. No attention is paid at all to the offerings and sacrifices. But as part of a speech involving the people in the Passover celebrations it is admirable. It describes their part totally satisfactorily.
For us who are Christians it is a reminder that we look to a greater Passover lamb and a greater deliverance. We too must rid ourselves of all leaven, of all that corrupts and defiles (1 Corinthians 5.8). We too look to the Passover Lamb, the One Who died for us (1 Corinthians 5.7). We too celebrate it by gathering with Him through His blood at the Father’s dwellingplace, although ours is in Heaven (Hebrews 8.1-2; 9.11-14,; 10.19-25).
The Passover and the Feast of Sevens (16.7-12).
16.7-8 is part of the chiasmus for the feast of sevens, and yet it continues on smoothly from 16.1-6. But remembering that we shall now consider them along with the Feast of Sevens (the one day feast of weeks or harvest or firstfruits) in relation to them. This feast occurred ‘seven sevens’ (of days) after the feast of unleavened bread. Unlike the other ‘seven day’ feasts this was a one day feast. Strictly speaking we should not speak of ‘weeks’ for that was not how it was thought of, and the seven sevens did not commence on a particular ‘day of the week’.
They began on the day after the initial first day sabbath of Unleavened Bread (that is on the evening of that sabbath after sundown) when the sheaf of the waveoffering, the first result of the putting in of the sickle to the standing grain, was brought at the feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus 23.15). It was the evening after the night of the Passover feast. Thus the two feasts were joined by a divine string of sevens. Their way of thinking about time was partly dominated by seven as an indication that Yahweh controlled their time, and that their times were in His hand. But their overall calendar was dominated by the movements of the moon, because that was convenient. That is why they necessarily had a sacred calendar and an agricultural calendar, although the two intermingled. (They were not at this stage ‘calendar minded’).
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note than in ‘a’ they are to roast and eat it (the Passover lamb) in the place which Yahweh their God shall choose, and they shall turn in the morning, and go their your tents (a reminder of the days of journeying), and in the parallel they will remember that they were bondsmen in Egypt and observe and do these statutes. In ‘b’ the seventh day of unleavened bread was to be a solemn assembly, and in it no work would be done (certainly a cause of celebration among their servants), and in the parallel (at the feast of sevens) they were to rejoice before Yahweh their God and this would include their servants and the poor who would all partake in the feast. Thus both feasts offered special blessing to the servants. In ‘c’ we discover the direct connection between Unleavened Bread and Sevens. They were to number seven sevens from the time they began to put the sickle to the standing grain, and the sheaf of the wave-offering was offered on the evening after the first day sabbath of Unleavened Bread, and in the parallel they would then keep the Feast of Sevens to Yahweh their God with a tribute of a freewill-offering from their hand, which they were to give according as Yahweh their God blessed them. At this feast they would bring the gifts of firstfruits, already symbolised by the sheaf offered when the seven sevens count began. Thus in a sense the two feasts ran into each other, and as the men went to their harvesting they were very much aware that they had seven sevens of days (excluding the Sabbaths and the six further days of Unleavened Bread) for their harvesting. God and His giving would constantly be kept in mind.
This flowing from one feast of rejoicing to another is very much a people’s aspect of things which again points to this being intended in a speech to the people, and not as some artificial law-book.
16.7 ‘And you shall roast and eat it in the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents.’
We are still at the Passover. Again the emphasis is on the place which Yahweh would choose. This emphasises His sovereignty in the arrangement. He is their Lord, they are His subjects. He has chosen this place for Him to dwell in and for them to come with their sacrifices. It would appear from this that the Passover was celebrated in the open air, the men and the households sitting together among the many other households on the holy ground around the tabernacle, the ‘place’ chosen by Yahweh. Strictly only the men were required to gather at the feasts, but they would regularly bring some or most of their households with them as 12.18 makes clear. It was to be ‘roasted’ (bishel). The verb simply means ‘cooked’ and can mean either roasted or boiled, but Exodus 12.8-9 declares that it should be roasted, and when the verb refers to boiling, ‘with water’ is normally added. Compare 2 Chronicles 35.13a where the verb means ‘cooked’ and ‘ with fire’ is added, while in Numbers 11.8; 2 Samuel 13.8 it refers to cooking cakes. In Akkadian the verb basalu also means to cook by roasting or boiling. Thus we can translate here ‘roasting’. Once the feast was over they would retire to their tents (compare 1.7; 5.30; 11.6). If taken literally this would confirm that ‘the place’ in mind was not originally Jerusalem, although ‘going to their tents’ (compare 2 Samuel 20.1; 1 Kings 12.16) was used later of going to houses. But the main point here is that the tents reminded them of the deliverance. From Passover night they then lived in tents.
16.8 ‘Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to Yahweh your God. You shall do no work.’
For six days unleavened bread must be eaten, and the final day of the seven was to be a solemn sabbath, a day for public rites and festival, in which no work was to be done. Of course on that day also unleavened bread was to be eaten. (Compare verse 4. If all leaven had been removed from within their borders as previously asserted there would anyway be no alternative). It was to be a day of rest and rejoicing for all, and the count down to the Feast of Svens had already begun.
The Feast of Sevens or Harvest or Day of The Firstfruits (16.9-12).
16.9 ‘ Seven sevens shall you number to you, from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain shall you begin to number seven sevens.’
This count of seven sevens was to commence the day after the sabbath when the sheaf of the waveoffering, the first result of the putting in of the sickle to the standing grain, was brought at the feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus 23.15). The seven sevens (forty nine days) hopefully gave time for the harvesting of first the barley, and then the wheat, to be completed. Then after the markedly divine period (seven sevens) the feast could be held on the fiftieth day (thus in Greek ‘Pente-cost’). But if in some years it was not, all could be fitted in around the one day feast. The so-called Gezer calendar (10th century BC), possibly a schoolboy’s record of the agricultural months of the year in view of its rough nature, mentions a month for barley harvesting and a month for harvesting ‘everything else’.
16.10 ‘And you shall keep the feast of sevens to Yahweh your God with a tribute of a freewill-offering of your hand, which you shall give, according as Yahweh your God blesses you,’
No ritual detail is here given of the feast, but rather emphasis is laid on the bringing of tribute, a freewill offering which they were to bring according to how Yahweh had blessed them. He is concerned with the people’s part in it. The harvest having been mainly gathered they would know exactly how far they had been blessed, at least as far as the harvests were concerned. It was a gift of gratitude and an act of submission. But there is no detailed legislation concerning the feast. For information about the priest’s part in it see, for example, Numbers 28.26-31; Leviticus 23.15-21.
16.11 ‘And you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man-servant, and your maid-servant, and the Levite that is within your gates, and the resident alien, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are in the midst of you, in the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there.’
It was anticipated that many in each household would come to this feast, and there before Yahweh they would rejoice together, along with the Levite, the resident alien who had chosen to dwell among them, and the bereft. These last were never to be forgotten in the celebrations. Levites were spread throughout the land for the purpose of their fulfilling of their responsibilities. Levitical priests on the other hand would live fairly conveniently to the Tabernacle.
None were to be excluded from the celebrations. It was a time for rejoicing by all, including bondsmen and bondswomen. And the fatherless and widows must be given full consideration. It was to be a compassionate society, not regulated from the top except by these Laws, but from the heart.
This one day feast of rejoicing would connect their minds back to the seventh day of Unleavened Bread which had been their previous holy-day of rejoicing and feasting and resting (verse 8).
16.12 ‘And you shall remember that you were a bondsman in Egypt, and you shall observe and do these statutes.’
Remembering that they had been bondsmen in Egypt was to affect most of their thinking, but especially at their feasts and when dealing with their own bondsmen and with the poor. It would increase their rejoicing, and increase their consideration for their servants and for the needy.
The Feast of Tabernacles (Booths, Ingathering) - (16.13-15).
This feast is passed over very briefly, not because it was not important, for it was the feast at which the whole Law had to be read out every seven years (31.10-13), but because what Moses has been emphasising has already mainly been spelled out. This is very understandable given the context, but would be unlikely in someone who was inventing the speech afterwards. It is typical of a speaker who is conscious of the time his speech is taking and does not wish to weary his listeners by going through the same thing again and again.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ they are to keep the feast in view of all the abundance of harvests that they have received, and in the parallel it is because Yahweh has blessed them in all their increase, and in all the work of their hands. Thus are they to be altogether joyful. In ‘b’ they are all to rejoice in their feast from the highest to the lowest, none are to be excluded, and in the parallel they shall keep the feast to Yahweh their God for seven days in the place which He will choose.
16.13-14 ‘You shall keep the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that you have gathered in from your threshing-floor and from your winepress, and you shall rejoice in your feast, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man-servant, and your maid-servant, and the Levite, and the resident alien, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within your gates.’
The Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated at the end of the agricultural year. By this time not only had the barley and wheat harvest been gathered, but also the grape harvest and the summer fruits. The threshing floor and the winepress had done their job and it was now time to celebrate and look forward to the coming rains which would enable the commencing of the round all over again.
It was thus a special time of rejoicing, and all were to have a part in it. The description given, as constantly used in this regard in Deuteronomy, is intended to include everyone in the land who owes allegiance to Yahweh.
16.15 ‘Seven days shall you keep a feast to Yahweh your God in the place which Yahweh shall choose, because Yahweh your God will bless you in all your increase, and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be altogether joyful.’
Again the feast was to be kept for ‘seven days’ demonstrating the divine perfection of the feast, and was to be held in the place where Yahweh had been pleased to take up His dwelling. This feast at the end of the agricultural ‘year’ or season was to be held because Yahweh would have blessed their increase throughout the year, all their harvests would have been gathered in, and everything would have been more than satisfactory. Thus they would be altogether joyful, and they were to demonstrate the fact.
For details of the priestly functions at this feast see Numbers 29.12-38; Leviticus 23.33-36. There would, of course, also be a multitude of freewill offerings.
The Threefold Feasts (16.16-17).
The meeting three times a year was a covenant requirement, an act of loyalty and a requirement for tribute. By this the covenant was continually confirmed.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Here we have both progression and chiasmus. In the chiasmus in ‘a’ they are to appear at these great feasts three times a year and in the parallel they are to give as Yahweh has blessed them. In ‘b’ the three feasts are detailed, and it is emphasised that they must not appear before Him empty. The assumption behind this is that Yahweh has blessed them, but in return they are to bring their tribute and thanksgiving gifts in their hands.
16.16-17 ‘Three times in a year shall all your males appear before Yahweh your God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of sevens, and in the feast of tabernacles, and they shall not appear before Yahweh empty, every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of Yahweh your God which he has given you.’
Note the names used for the feasts, ‘unleavened bread’ because that side of it has been Moses’ emphasis in this speech as far as the people were concerned, ‘sevens’ because it indicated the divine content of the feasts, and ‘tabernacles’ because the people would be erecting and spending their time in tents. The first and third were features of their direct participation, and the second emphasised an expectancy of divine participation. They baked the bread and ate it, they erected the tents and lived in them, and they waited the seven sevens in expectancy. It made them feel as though they were taking part even while they were listening. The name Passover stressed the sacrificial side, and Harvest (Exodus 23.16) and Ingathering (Exodus 23.66; 34.22) as used elsewhere were more descriptions of their purpose. Thus those names were not used here. Here the concentration was on the people’s participation.
So all the males of Israel were to gather for these three feasts, unleavened bread, sevens and tabernacles, every year, appearing ‘before Yahweh’ in the place where He had chosen to dwell and establish His authority. And there they were to pay their tribute. They were not to come empty. If Yahweh’s commands were carried out none would need to appear empty. And they must be ready to give as they were able in accordance with the blessing that they had received from Yahweh.
It would be an act of tribute to their Overlord, an expression of gratitude to their Father (as His sons - 14.1), and an act of commitment and dedication for the future. For the males it was compulsory, but all were welcome, and a good time was to be had by all as they rejoiced together in Yahweh’s presence declaring their gratitude and love.
The emphasis on the males was because they mainly had responsibility for the running of their communities, for fighting their battles, and for deciding issues connected with the covenant. It was necessary that all of them be there when reasonably possible, for at the feasts many issues connected with the community would be thrashed out, and major judgments decided. It represented in fact a semi-democracy. They might also be necessary in case one or two tribes were feeling recalcitrant. Others apart from the men were welcome but were not as necessary, and indeed some might well be required to stay at home while the males were away. This probably refers to all free males over a certain age. Had it not been a strict requirement many may have sought to opt out. As it was they knew that non-appearance was the equivalent of treason unless a cast iron case could be made for absence.
So here we come to the end of this section commencing at 12.1 which has stressed their needing to worship Yahweh in spiritual fitness and joy, free from idolatry (13), living cleanly and wholesomely (14), being generous to the needy (14.28-15.18), worshipping in joy (16) and bringing their offerings and tithes and firstlings to Him, and all at the place which He would choose..
II. INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE GOVERNING OF THE COMMUNITY (16.18-19.21).
Having established the principles of worship and religious response for the community based on the dwellingplace where Yahweh would choose to establish His name, Moses now moved on to various aspects of governing the community. He had clearly been giving a great deal of thought to what would happen when he had gone, and to that end had been meditating on God’s promises in Genesis and the content of God’s Instruction (Torah).
Moses was doing here what he described himself as having done for the previous generation (1.15-18). There he had established them with a system of justice ready for entry into the land but they had refused to enter it when Yahweh commanded. Now he was preparing their sons for entry into the land in a similar way.
Justice was to be provided for in a number of ways:
But while we may see this as a separate unit it is not so in the Hebrew. As we would expect in a speech not prepared by a trained orator it just goes smoothly forward. ‘Thee, thou’ predominates as befits a section dealing with commandments with an occasional subtle introduction of ‘ye, your’.
The Need To Appoint Satisfactory Judges (16.18-20).
Crucial to enjoying blessing in the land was the establishing of a satisfactory system of justice. There can be no question that a fair and effective justice system produces the maximum benefit for everyone, even though some prefer to be without it because they are greedy and in their hearts godless. To distort justice is to dishonour God, and He will eventually call to account all who do so. As we have already noted, in 1.15-17 a fair system of justice was declared by Moses to have been one of the great benefits that Yahweh had given their fathers, and their failure to respond to Yahweh was in the light of it seen to be most culpable.
Analysis in the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ judges were to be appointed ‘in all your gates which Yahweh your God gives you’ and in the parallel they were to follow all that was just ‘and inherit the land which Yahweh your God gives you’. In ‘b’ they were to judge righteously and in the parallel they were reminded how.
16.18 ‘Judges and officers shall you (thou) make yourselves in all your gates, which Yahweh your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.’
Once they were established in the cities and towns which Yahweh was about to give them, and were no longer under military jurisdiction, they must appoint judges and officers to watch over legal affairs. Each city and town was to have its civil judiciary, usually selected from among the elders of the town because of their wide experience, their acknowledged ability and their knowledge of God’s Instruction (the Torah), who would meet at the gate of the city or town where there would be an open space. With them would be officials appointed to ensure that justice was carried out (compare 22.13-19; 25.2, 5-10; Ruth 4; Hosea 7.7; 13.10; Isaiah 1.26; 3.2; Micah 7.3). These would then be responsible to tribal leaders over the tribal areas (Joshua 14-19). And all must judge righteous judgments (compare John 7.24). They must judge according to His Instruction. Obedience to His Instruction (Torah - ‘Law’) is the foundation for much of what follows.
16.19 ‘You shall not wrest justice, you shall not respect persons (literally ‘you shall not recognise faces’), nor shall you take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous.’
Note the threefoldness of the command, ‘You shall not wrest (or pervert) justice, you shall not respect persons, you shall not take a bribe’. This is a charter for the justices. They must neither distort or pervert justice (compare 24.17; 27.19; Exodus 23.6), nor take account of who the litigants were, whether influential nobles or relative nobodies, whether wealthy or impoverished, nor must they take a bribe or sweetener (God does not and neither should man - 10.17). Nor must they allow such things to change their view of the evidence, nor use their skills to distort the honesty of righteous men. Alternately the last idea may be that the bribe might make even the righteous give false witness.
Injustice and corruption are a shame on any country, and the unfortunate lot of all. ‘A bribe blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the word of the righteous.’ If we had seen this by itself we could easily have taken it as being from the book of Proverbs (although it is not. Proverbs could not conceive of the wise behaving like this) and was possibly a saying that was current in the camp, compare Exodus 23.8 from where it is taken.
Taking these two verses along with 17.8-13 note the parallels with 1.15-18. These are (1) the importance of impartiality in administering justice, (2) the way that the judges and officials were to be appointed with the approval of the people, (3) the link with the tribal system, and (4) the fact of a God-provided authority which could be appealed to. In the final analysis the last appeal was to Yahweh through His chosen representatives.
But note also the difference in the description of the officials. Here we have an organised system for ruling the towns and cities which they were shortly to possess, while 1.15-18 described more a system overruled by line commanders over groups, more suitable for journeying. All fits into place.
Through the ages justice has been commonly distorted by all these methods described, and in general is as much so today. The use of influence to obtain decisions is commonplace in local authorities (in spite of the pretence that it is not), people with influence, or who have the right friends, get their own way, while others are relatively ignored; bribery and corruption of different kinds are influential at all levels of society, while political ends regularly sway decisions. Regularly local courts do not have time to consider the true merits of individual cases and judgments are arbitrary and in favour of legal representatives, and tribunals heavily favour one side or the other. The truth is that in our society true justice is too expensive for lower level situations. ‘Justice’ is run on the cheap. Fortunately in the larger cases there is even today a general regard for justice in many democratic countries, but it is the only in that sphere that it can be confidently expected to be obtained in most cases.
16.20 ‘That which is altogether just shall you follow, that you may live, and inherit the land which Yahweh your God gives you.’
Rather than perverting justice they were to follow it assiduously. It was vital that Yahweh’s people be absolutely just in all their dealings, aware that Yahweh knew their very thoughts and the genuineness of their actions. Thus by truly following justice they would inherit the land that Yahweh their God was giving them. The reverse implication is that if injustice prevailed they would lose their land.
These verses bring home to us all, that God looks for us to deal fairly and righteously in all circumstances. Anything else is displeasing to Him. He does not practise positive discrimination.
A Ban On All Religious Objects And Behaviour Which Would Dishonour Yahweh And Make Them Unfit As Judges (16.21-17.1).
It is quite possible that certain matters of justice among the Canaanites (both in Canaan, and in Egypt where Canaanites settled) were decided at Canaanite sanctuaries, with pillars and Asherah involved in the procedures. If so such a procedure was not to be followed by Israel. It would reveal the judges as unfit to judge. So would the offering of blemished sacrifices. All would demonstrate an attitude of mind that was contrary to Yahweh. For where God was to be involved Israel must rather come to the priests and the supreme judge (17.9), in the courtyard of the tabernacle, in the place where Yahweh would choose to dwell (17.8, 10), where any difficult case could be settled before Yahweh (17.12).
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note in ‘a’ that to plant an Asherah (female goddess) which they had made for themselves next to the altar of Yahweh their God, and parallel to that is a general statement which covers these verses. All of them are an abomination to Yahweh their God. In ‘b’ nor were they to set up a pillar which Yahweh their God hates, nor in the parallel were they to offer to Yahweh their God a sacrifice of a blemished ox or sheep, or one in which there was evil (or disfavour or anything disagreeable). Thus a blemished offering is equally an abomination to Yahweh their God as an Asherah or Pillar in Yahweh’s Dwellingplace.
16.21 ‘You shall not plant yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of Yahweh your God, which you shall make for yourself.’
Having established the altar of Yahweh their God at the place which Yahweh would choose as His dwellingplace, they must brook no rivals. No handmade Asherah image or pole, of any kind of wood whatsoever, was permitted beside His altar. Asherah, a Canaanite goddess, was represented at Canaanite sanctuaries either by a wooden image or a pole representing a tree (it is not certain which), probably as the wife of the Baal who was the main god there, the latter often represented by a stone pillar. Such provision of female company for Yahweh was absolutely banned. It was an abomination (17.1). Yahweh was above sexual differentiation as to male or female and was not involved in procreation, both of which He brought into being, but did not indulge in Himself. He is Yahweh and above all.
16.22 ‘Nor shall you set yourself up a pillar, which Yahweh your God hates.’
Nor were they to set up a pillar by the altar of Yahweh before which men could worship and consult and dispense justice. The thought may have been that the pillar was to represent Yahweh, but as such it would be equally evil. It would be something that Yahweh hated. The stress is on not aping the Canaanites, and on not trying to represent Yahweh in any way. Here we have the second commandment being enforced, no graven images or images of any kind. This did not contradict in any way memorial pillars erected away from the sanctuary which were not for worship and consultation, and were permitted.
Jacob set up memorial pillars to Yahweh (Genesis 28.18; 31.13, 45; although gratitude could be expressed at them by pouring a libation over them - 35.14) and Isaiah spoke of a similar memorial pillar being set up on the borders of Egypt when Egypt had begun to seek Yahweh (Isaiah 19.19, compare with this the memorial altar in Joshua 22.26-27 on the border of Transjordan), both of which were acceptable. Memorial pillars were common (Genesis 31.45-54; 35.20; Exodus 24.4; Joshua 4.1-9; 24.26-27; 2 Samuel 18.18). None of these had the purpose that men should worship before them.
Chapter 17 Honouring Yahweh And Establishing True Justice.
The emphasis on right justice and right behaviour towards Yahweh has led on to the banning of wooden Asherim and stone Pillars as an approach to God. The mention of the Asherim and the Pillars leads on to other questions concerning their approach to God and their attitude towards other gods, blemished offerings and outright idolatry. That verse 1 connects with 16.21-22 is suggested by the three fold, ‘you shall not plant yourself an Asherah --- nor shall you set up to yourself a pillar --- you shall not sacrifice to Yahweh your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish’. These are three angles of one fact, that such behaviour invalidates those who judge. In order to serve Yahweh it was necessary to be true within.
(In this chapter, up to verse 16 where it is ‘ye’ (in a quotation), the singular ‘thou’ is used. After verse 16 neither occurs).
Nothing Must Be Offered To Yahweh Which Was Blemished (17.1).
17.1 ‘You shall not sacrifice to Yahweh your God an ox, or a sheep, in which is a blemish, or anything evil, for that is an abomination to Yahweh your God.’
Nothing must be brought to the altar of Yahweh which was blemished or evil. This included the bringing and sacrificing of blemished animals, whether ox bull or sheep, or animals with anything at all that could render them unsuitable. To offer a blemished animal was as bad as introducing false religious symbols. It was to treat Yahweh as though He could not see what was being offered, and with unfeigned contempt. Compare 15.21; Malachi 1.6-8. It would put them in a condition where they were not fit to pass judgment, for they would have demonstrated their duplicity. It would be ‘an abomination to Yahweh your God’.
It is strange how easily even we think that we can deceive God. But we are only deceiving ourselves. When we come to Him with our offerings we must recognise that He knows precisely what is in our hearts.
Anyone Found Worshipping Other Gods Was To Be Stoned To Death, But Only After Careful Enquiry (17.2-7).
The reference to the abominations of Asherah, Pillar and blemished offerings leads on the thought of all idolatry. The worshipping of other gods was a capital offence, but it was necessary that the charge was proved to be genuinely true. Charging people with blasphemy on false grounds has been the curse of religion throughout history and is sadly often the result of a deeply religious bent. The Pharisees and Sadducees did it to Jesus. It is equally to be condemned between denominations, although it is right that genuine blasphemy be so condemned. The point here is that it must first be genuinely proved. Then it would result in the death penalty.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the person is found within their gates transgressing the covenant and doing evil in the eyes of Yahweh their God by worshipping other gods, (thus what they have done has been witnessed), then at the mouths of at least two witnesses they must be put to death, the witnesses throwing the first stones, followed by the people. This common action will remove the evil from among them. In ‘b’ the enquiry must be detailed and fair, but if the thing is certain, then in the parallel they must be brought to their gates and stoned to death.
17.2-3 ‘If there be found in the midst of you, within any of your gates which Yahweh your God gives you, man or woman who does that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,’
What had been previously mentioned brought home the dangers of idolatry, and in the context of words about establishing justice he now illustrated the approach that must be taken in all legal decisions by using idolatry as an example, while at the same time again condemning it absolutely.
Suppose there was found among them, within the cities that ‘Yahweh had given them’, (cities therefore holy to Him as the camp had been), a man or woman who did evil in the sight of Yahweh and who was transgressing His covenant by ‘going and serving other gods, and worshipping them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded’.
The thought is of someone engaged in false worship, but this time they had gone the whole way. They had deserted Yahweh and were serving other gods and worshipping them. This included the worship of images and idols, and the worship of sun or moon or stars.
The worship of the sun was unquestionably practised in Canaan, for at least one city was named ‘the house of Shemesh’ (Bethshemesh), while in Egypt Ra or Aten were sun gods who were seen as profoundly affecting things day by day (and in unseen battles at night). It is probable that Abraham’s father was a moon-worshipper, for Haran was a centre of moon-worship, and in Egypt Thoth was at one time a moon god. In Canaan Yerah was the moon god, possibly worshipped at ‘Yeri-cho’ (Jericho). The term ‘host of heaven’ was well known in Israel (see 1 Kings 22.19; compare Deuteronomy 33.2) and the concept as old as, and older than, Genesis 32.2. It originally referred to heavenly beings. But every night men around the world would look up and see the stars, and various aspects of them would be worshipped, which was why in some places learned men tracked their movements. So recognition of them as Yahweh’s hosts, an easy step to make, could easily turn to worship of them as the host of heaven. Genesis 1.16 with its ‘and made the stars also’ would appear to have been a deliberate attempt to play the stars down. Worship of sun, moon and stars goes back into the mists of time. They had a fascination for men and were mysteries that drew men’s veneration.
By so worshipping they would have broken the covenant and done what Yahweh had not commanded. Indeed He had commanded that they should not do it. They must therefore face the judgment of His justices and officials.
17.4-5 ‘And it be told you, and you have heard of it, then shall you enquire diligently, and, behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel, then shall you bring forth that man or that woman, who has done this evil thing, to your gates, even the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death with stones.’
But when they heard of such a thing happening they must make diligent enquiry. We can compare this with 13.14. We need hardly doubt that Moses intended them to see this as a pattern which should be followed in all cases to be brought before the justices. And it was only if the matter was true and the thing certain that they were to proceed.
‘Such abomination was wrought in Israel.’ Although it was only given as an example, that did not lessen the crime. He had chosen the worst possible case to use as his illustration of justice. False worship struck at the very root of the covenant. It replaced Yahweh as Supreme. It was totally unacceptable. It was something that Yahweh was against with all His being. It was ‘abominable’. And yet even that must be subject to fair trial.
On the case being proved, the man or woman who had done this evil was to be brought forth to the gates, to the place of justice, and once the case was satisfactorily proved, the man or woman was to be stoned to death with stones, the first stones being thrown by the witnesses. Stoning was always the penalty for this crime in Israel, for it prevented anyone having to touch those who had been defiled.
In the wilderness the stoning had to take place ‘outside the camp’, but this would not now be possible. The equivalent of the camp was the whole of the land of Israel, and to take them to the borders of the land would have been impractical. But the gate of the city was the equivalent. The person had been brought out from where the people dwelt and was executed at the place of sentence, away from the sphere of their living accommodation.
17.6-7 ‘At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death. At the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hand of the witnesses shall be first on him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you will put away the evil from the midst of you.’
But this must not be done at the hand of only one witness (compare Numbers 35.30). There must be at least two or three witnesses. Then the hand of the witnesses were to throw the first stones, something which if they had spoken truly they would not hesitate to do, after which all the people were to take part. As all would have been affected by it so must all be involved in the punishment. So care was taken against false accusations, and against mob rule. But the finally important thing was that the evil would be put away from among them.
The Place Of Final Appeal (17.8-15).
But if a case was brought which was too hard for the local justices to decide, there was to be a final place of appeal made up of the levitical priests and the chief judge of the day (verse 9). Their decision would be final. We can compare this with how Moses was the final court of appeal while he was still over the people (1.17b).
Analysis in the words of Moses:
This is more progressive than chiasmus. But in ‘a’ the method of judgment for difficult cases is laid out, and in the parallel the warning given that not to accept the verdict of that court (the court being seen to be fair) will mean being put to death so that all may fear and give due respect to the court which meets before Yahweh. For to dispute the sacred court is doing evil in Israel by encouraging anarchy. In ‘b’ they arise and go to the place which Yahweh their God chooses and in the parallel they are to heed the ones who minister there before Yahweh their God. In ‘c’ they enquire and receive the verdict and are to do according to the tenor of the sentence, and in the parallel they must receive the sentence which has been according to the tenor of Yahweh’s Instruction and not divert from it.
17.8-11 ‘If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within your gates, then shall you arise, and get yourself up to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, and you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days, and you shall enquire, and they will show you the sentence of judgment, and you shall do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall show you from that place which Yahweh shall choose, and you shall observe to do according to all that they shall teach you, according to the tenor of the law which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you, to the right hand, nor to the left.’
If any case proved too hard for the local elders to judge, whether it be a question of differentiation between murder and other forms of manslaughter, or between the approach to be taken on one type of plea as against another, or between grievous bodily harm and lesser violence, with the case producing differing views among the elders as they judged the matter within the gate. Then they must rise up and take the details of the case to the Central Sanctuary, to the place where Yahweh was pleased to dwell. They must come to the levitical priests and the judge of that day, and enquire there as to what to do.
This is the first mention in Deuteronomy of the levitical priests (‘the priests the Levites’) under that title. The phrase is found regularly in Deuteronomy (17.9, 18; 18.1; 24.8; 27.9) in contrast with ‘the Levite(s)’ (12.12, 18, 19; 14.27, 29; 16.11, 14; 18.7; 26.11, 12, 13; 27.14; 31.25) and is used regularly by others who certainly separate between priests and Levites (2 Chronicles 23.18; 30.27; Ezekiel 43.19; 44.15; 48.13). It is also found in Jeremiah 33.18; Joshua 3.3; 8.33. For further consideration see discussion at 18.1-6.
‘The judge that shall be in those days.’ This would suggest that Israel might have someone who could act as supreme judge, a recognised individual of unique status, to have a say in such cases, or possibly a small group of such recognised judges acting in turn. He/they possibly also had general jurisdiction over the people. Moses may have been thinking of the one who would replace him, and the ones who would follow after, for as the recognised head of Israel he had been responsible for judging (Exodus 18.13) as well as exercising authority over the people. We can compare here the term ‘judge’, as used in the book of Judges, of people who ruled over ‘Israel’.
‘And you shall do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall show you from that place which Yahweh shall choose, and you shall observe to do according to all that they shall teach you, according to the tenor of the law which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you, to the right hand, nor to the left.’ Whatever decision or sentence was passed by this body at the place where Yahweh had chosen to dwell they must observe to do. This would be the place of final appeal. This would apply whether the matter was one of interpreting teaching or of passing judgment. Once decided there was to be no avoiding it, and no seeking to give it different meanings. It was in fact important that once a final decision had been reached the matter was seen as closed.
This was, of course, on the basis that they were revealing themselves to be reliable judges by following Moses’ requirements for them. They were required to demonstrate how their decision was in accordance with God’s Instruction (Torah). Once they became patently dishonest the prophets attacked them openly. But the people were still required to carry out their decisions (compare Jesus verdict on the Pharisees - Matthew 23.3).
Comparing this and 16.18-20 with the reign of Jehoshaphat (‘Yahweh has judged’) it seems that Jehoshaphat followed the pattern laid down here (2 Chronicles 19). Jehoshaphat appointed judges up and down the land, and established a supreme court in Jerusalem headed by ‘Levites, priests and the heads of the families of Israel for the judgment of Yahweh and for controversies’ (2 Chronicles 19.8).
17.12 ‘And the man who does presumptuously, in not listening to the priest who stands to minister there before Yahweh your God, or to the judge, even that man shall die, and you shall put away the evil from Israel.’
Anyone who openly rejected the final verdict of the court pronounced by the Judge and ‘the Priest’, the court having consisted of ‘the judge’ and the priests, whether it be the accused or the justices, was to be put to death, for it would be to attack the very authority on which justice was based. It would be to act evilly against the highest religious and civil authorities acting together. For the point was that ‘the Priest’ ministered before Yahweh, and was therefore appointed to act in His name, while the Judge was appointed over the people. But there would be no distinction between cases. All would be seen as covenant law.
17.13 ‘And all the people shall hear, and fear, and no more act presumptuously.’
The result of the death sentence on anyone who openly attacked the decision of the final court of appeal, whether the accused or the justices, would be that all Israel would hear about it, and fear, and not act presumptuously in the same way.
The purpose of the death sentence was, of course, to dissuade anyone from taking up such a position, thus establishing the final authority of the court. The hope was that it would never need to be carried out.
We learn from all this the importance of the establishment of true justice, and that in the end that must be found in conformity to His word and to His Law.
Requirements For Any Future King (17.14-20).
Having been speaking of ‘the Judge’ who would have authority over Israel took, and being very much aware of the people’s weaknesses and willingness to follow anyone who offered them what they wanted (to look after them and fight their battles for them) Moses’ thoughts turned back to the promises of Genesis. There God had said that one day kings would be established who would be descended from Abraham (Genesis 17.6, 16; 36.31; 35.11; compare also Exodus 19.6 where a kingdom of priests is mentioned which requires a king), so that he recognised that one day it was inevitable.
He also knew of Jacob’s prophecy concerning such a royal personage who would arise from Judah (Genesis 49.10), the coming of ‘Shiloh’, and he would have recently been further informed of the words of Balaam in Numbers 24.17 about ‘the sceptre that shall arise out of Israel’. None of this would have escaped his notice as he sought to prepare for the huge event that was about to come. He would have been negligent if it had. And we can understand why he was fearful that such a king, when he arose, would in seeking to promote himself, look to Egypt, the one great earthly power of whom he was most aware. And would not be reliable as a Judge. The one thing therefore that he would want them to avoid was ‘a king like the nations’.
At the time Moses was Israel’s ‘Judge’ (1.17b) with full powers of ‘kingship’ under Yahweh, and he knew that he would shortly be appointing Joshua to have similar supreme authority. He had lived in the light of the revelations of Yahweh and the records of the fathers of old, and he expected Joshua to do the same. And he knew that always over Israel was Yahweh as Great King and Overlord Who had proved His supremity even over the Pharaoh.
But once established in the land he must have recognised that it was very likely that, once Joshua had died and time had passed, the people would want to appoint a king. At present Yahweh was their King with Moses as His deputy. The same would apply with Joshua. But what about those who followed? Moses knew men’s weaknesses. They would want to fall into line, and they would want to be looked after. And as Scripture confirmed that kingship was to happen, that made it obvious. But that made it necessary that getting the wrong kind of king was guarded against. When they did seek a king he was concerned that that king should recognise his true position under Yahweh, and be the kind of king that Yahweh approved of. And he knew that the only difference between Joshua and a king would be that Joshua had more authority because Yahweh was supreme king and he was His voice, but had less pretensions. The king, if a bad one, might act on his own authority and in his own name.
So Moses’ concern about kingship was fully understandable. He had especially seen what it was like in Egypt. He had seen the frantic efforts to build up the numbers of horses for military purposes, especially for the drawing of the chariots which were so vital a weapon in warfare, so that pre-eminence might be gained. He had himself been involved in the harems of Pharaoh, and experienced the intrigues that were constantly going on. He had noted the great efforts that kings and nobles put into gaining great wealth. And as he considered his people he was afraid lest they find themselves under someone like that. And he was concerned lest such a king might make treaties with Egypt, becoming their vassal in order to obtain horses.
He had also no doubt experienced petty ‘kings’ while son-in-law to the priest of Midian, and had noted that although their ambitions were on a smaller scale, they were still there. He had recently had dealings with the kings of Edom, Moab and Ammon who would all have treated him as a king, to say nothing of the kings of the Amorites. He would have noted the harem and wealth of Sihon, king of the Amorites, laid bare in Heshbon. He knew especially of Og, foreign king in Bashan, descended from a ‘super-race’ whose very bedstead (or sarcophagus) was the talk of all the nations around. Furthermore Israel were about to invade a country of nations who all had kings. Kingship was very much a current issue. And once they were settled in the land they would constantly be surrounded by kings. But he wanted to save his people from kings like that. It would be better for them to stick with Judges who had no such expectations. But if they would not do that, and he suspected that they would not, for they would soon begin to see them as the equivalent of kings, then let them consider what a king under Yahweh must be like if they were not to regret the move.
So we may take it for granted that an astute leader like Moses would recognise the very good likelihood, indeed certainty, that one day the people would seek to make their Judge a king following a similar pattern to the nations round about. How else could the prophecies be fulfilled? And it was after all only one step on from the overall ‘Judge’. The only difference that there would be between Joshua and a king would be that Joshua would not seek to behave with the bad habits of a king. He thus now gave strict instructions of what any king they considered appointing must be like.
Moses’ stress, then, was on the fact that he must not be like the kings round about. Rather he was to be and ‘ideal’, one of themselves, chosen by Yahweh, a native of Israel, and a student of Yahweh’s Instruction. He was to be a disclaimer of foreign military power and foreign marriage treaties, and spurn the accumulation of treasure for himself. He was to that end to write for himself a book based on the records which were under the oversight of the levitical priests and kept in the Tabernacle, the book which Moses himself had brought together from ancient covenant and other records (Genesis) and from the details of the Instruction (Torah) as directly revealed to him by God (the main basis of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). And he was to live by them.
Indeed this picture of an ‘ideal’ king was so unlike any king that Israel ever knew or would know that it could only have been a theoretical one posited before the reality ruined the whole picture. Once kingship was established no one would ever have dreamed of suggesting a king like this. For it was actually the very opposite of what kings were. Instead they would have turned back to arguing for judges or chieftains or councils of elders. Moses’ words would also act as a warning to future judges. But until the coming of Jesus no such king ever lived.
We can consider in this respect how at least one such Judge, Gideon, was pressed to become Israel’s king and his refusal may well have been a polite acceptance (Judges 8.22-23). He certainly behaved like a king of the wrong kind (Judges 8.30), and one of his sons was expected to follow after him (Judges 9.2). Indeed he lost the position for his family precisely because he ignored Moses’ words here. He incidentally proved the wisdom of Moses’ instructions in his ignoring of them, for his family suffered the consequences.
One remarkable thing about this idea of kingship here was that there was no thought within it of the king making the laws. This king was rather to be like his fellow countrymen, he was to be subject to Yahweh’s Instruction. He was to be totally unlike other kings. He was to act as a judge under Yahweh. Indeed as he will shortly reveal, there would be priests chosen by Yahweh and prophets raised up by Yahweh to keep him in the right way.
We may note in passing that he expected that the king would write himself a copy of the Law. It is hardly therefore likely that he himself would have failed to ensure that such a book was available for Joshua.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note in ‘a’ his expectation and foreboding that when they are established in the land they will want a king over them, thus in the parallel he warns against appointing someone whose heart will be lifted up above his fellow-citizens, who may then not walk within Yahweh’s covenant requirements (‘the commandment’) and may then not prolong his days in the kingdom. In ‘b’ he commands them to set over them only one whom Yahweh will choose, a true worshipper of Yahweh circumcised within the covenant, and in the parallel he declares that once such a one takes up his position he must be totally guided by God’s word and covenant (law), and rule by the law provided for him in the ‘book’ which was in the hands of the priests and Levites, the scrolls or tablets of the Testimony. In ‘c’ he declares that they must not appoint someone who multiplies horses to himself, lest this beguile him to seek to Egypt, and in the parallel that he is not to be someone who multiplies wives to himself or silver and gold. In other words it must be someone whose only concern is to please Yahweh and wants no grandeur out of his appointment.
The only king who was remotely like this was Saul at the very beginning. But at that stage he was simply a war leader under Samuel, and even he soon began to get delusions of grandeur. It was inevitable. The truth is that all kings that men knew of multiplied wives for themselves and sought to use their position to make themselves wealthy. It was rooted in their very nature. And with all his good points David was no exception. He was far from Moses’ ideal king. Yet in later centuries he was looked back on as the ideal king which demonstrates that the ideas stated here are remote from any ideas of kingship that existed later. So in these words we have Moses’ desperate attempts to do what he could to avoid what was inevitable.
17.14 ‘When you are come to the land which Yahweh your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall dwell in it, and shall say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me,”
Aware thus of human nature, and especially of the failings of the people whom he had led for so long, and possibly aware of rumblings already occurring in some quarters (there was probably already a minority who longed for a king to give them status. Compare also the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram who no doubt coveted kingship), Moses knew that one day they would opt for someone to be king over them. And the prophecies confirmed it. They too spoke of the rise of kings. He therefore directed their minds to what a king under Yahweh must be like. There was irony in his words.
He first stressed that they must recognise that this option would only be open to them because of Yahweh’s activity. It was He Who was giving them the land. It was He Who would ensure their possession. It was He Who would settle them in it to dwell there. So they must not forget Him. But, as he knew from the past, once all that had happened and they had settled down, they would still be dissatisfied. They would find the burden of running the country very heavy. They would look around and see the glories of kings and their pageantry and how they took on all the responsibilities. And they would be envious. They would crave someone to take on all their responsibilities too.
17.15 ‘You shall surely set him king over you, whom Yahweh your God shall choose, one from among your brethren shall you set king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.’
When they did reach this position they must ensure that the king they appointed was the chosen of Yahweh and one of themselves. There must be no Og’s over Israel, foreigners selected for their great fighting ability, no submissions to Pharaoh. No foreign overlord must be allowed. (Note how this stress on the king being one chosen of Yahweh demonstrates that when the phrase ‘whom Yahweh your God shall choose’ is used the emphasis is on Yahweh’s choosing. Thus for ‘in the place that He will choose’ the same applies.)
17.16 ‘Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses, forasmuch as Yahweh has said to you, “You shall henceforth return no more that way.” ’
He must not be one who will depend on horses and chariotry (compare Isaiah 2.7; Micah 5.10), for that would only lead to further contact with Egypt as the obvious provider (compare 1 Kings 10.28). In those days the horse was the symbol of military power, and the army was built around them, so the multiplying of horses indicated the building up of military power. They must not gaze with envy at Egypt’s power, and its many horses with its chariotry, nor appoint a king who would submit to Pharaoh and return them under Egypt’s rule in return for some of those horses to be at his disposal. Egypt depended on their chariots and horses and they had been very much involved in the attempt to prevent Israel’s getaway (Exodus 14.7, 9, 17, 23), so Israel were very conscious of them. Israel still sang about it in Moses’ day (Exodus 15.4, 21). To them they were a symbol of Egypt’s greatness, and Egypt’s oppression. But Israel must depend on Yahweh for security, not on Pharaoh and Egypt and horses (compare Isaiah 31.1, 3). To look to Egypt could only lead to subjection to Egypt.
Some connect this with trading with Egypt, possibly trading slaves or mercenaries for horses. But the emphasis is surely more on the danger of becoming embroiled with Egypt once again, and trusting in them with all its downside rather than in Yahweh.
17.17 ‘Nor shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away, nor shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.’
Nor must he seek to build up his position by marriage treaties which would involve marrying foreign wives who would turn his heart away from Yahweh (compare 7.3-5). The use of marriage to maintain a dynasty had been practised by Abraham. It was even more common among kings. He had watched it happening in Egypt, with Pharaoh erecting temples for his foreign wives. For marriage secured treaty relationships, and treaty relationships with the right people gave strength, and the wives had to be kept sweet. Again there is the implied command to avoid foreign treaties. They were not needed. Yahweh alone was sufficient.
But he also knew how much plotting and intrigue there could be among king’s wives, even homeborn ones, as each plotted and schemed for their own born sons to be given power. He wanted also to save Israel from that. And from the sway of women behind the throne, each seeking their own benefit, regardless of what was for the good of the people.
Nor must he seek to amass great wealth in silver and gold so as to exercise his influence in that way (compare Isaiah 2.7). Multiplying silver and gold could involve raids into other people’s territory and heavy taxes on the people. It could cause great hardship to those from whom the wealth was extracted, and it would signify greed and being unsatisfied with what Yahweh had given. And it would lead to the desire for more and more. His eyes would more be on gold than on God.
We must remember that Moses knew only too well, from experience, what swayed men. He had seen it all too often. Power, women and wealth, that was what ruined men, and he would have seen through his experiences in the Egyptian court, and in Midian in his association with the priest of Midian and other Midianite tribes with their kings, how different royal connections sought to build up their own influence so as to gain great wealth. But while horses with their chariots, and foreign alliances, and wealth were the way to victory and success for other nations, they were not to be so for Israel. They were to look only to Yahweh. This description of kingship gone to the bad was widely illustrated in every king around, some to a greater extent than others, and his recent experiences with regards to Sihon and Og would simply have confirmed it to him. Moses was not a fool.
So to suggest that these words could only have been written after the time of Solomon is naive in the extreme. His words were a photograph of all kings. They were a photograph of the Pharaohs and of known petty kings. They were even a photograph of Gideon (Judges 8.30).
17.18-19 ‘And it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites, and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them,’
So their king must rather be one who submits himself to Yahweh’s instruction. When he sits on his throne his consideration should not to be on how to build up his power base and his wealth, and how to please his wives, but on how to please Yahweh, the One Who had given them everything that they had, and how to build up the wealth of the nation. Thus he should ensure that he had his own copy of the record of Yahweh’s doings and of His Law as contained in the books which were in the levitical priests’ care. (As Deuteronomy was not, at this stage in his speech, in written form, this must refer to an earlier written Law). And he must keep it ever by him and read it every day of his life, so that he might learn to fear Yahweh his God, and keep His Instruction and what He had laid down, in accordance with what was now being spoken of by Moses. Such a king might be conceived of as possible in the beginning, but not once Saul had been king for a few years. And certainly not once kingship had been established. Even Hezekiah and Josiah, presented from the best possible view, were not remotely like this. No one later could have been foolish enough to suggest such an ideal as possible. Those who did not want such kings would turn away from kingship. But it was certainly a theoretical possibility while they were still without a home.
17.20 ‘That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left, to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel.’
And the reason why he should do this with Yahweh’s Law was so that he might not become proud, nor see himself as mighty, but so that he might rather obey Yahweh’s instructions as given in His commandment (His statutes and His ordinances), not turning from them either one way or the other, but walking humbly before God. Then he would ensure his own long success, and that of his successors and the continuance of their rule over Israel.
This is the way too that we can ensure God’s blessing on us and on our families and on His people, by continually having by us His word, and reading it, and applying it to our lives.
Excursus On The Kingship Described Here.
Note how here all the thought is on avoiding Egypt. Once established in the land other neighbours to the north would have come to mind, but at this time Egypt, the Egypt that they had left behind and which still had a fatal attraction for the people, was the one great reality he knew of to be avoided. This fits with Moses’ environment and fears and awareness exactly. None knew better than he the promises that Egypt would make in order to gain dominion over nations. And he had not brought Israel to this place to see them again submit themselves to Egypt. They must remain a free people, whose whole trust and dependence was on Yahweh, the fighter of their battles.
(It is difficult to believe that anyone who lived in the times of the later great empires could have written in this manner, restricting his thoughts to Egypt. In those days such a historic sense would not have been possible).
We must repeat that no king appointed in Israel (and then Judah) was ever like the ideal that Moses describes here. It was purely theoretical and ideal, demonstrating that it was certainly written before kingship arose, for once that happened it shattered into smithereens the ideal once and for all. This comes out especially in the fact that even from the beginning of the concept of kingship the people rejected this type of king altogether and never even considered it. It was not at all what they wanted. They wanted one who was like other kings, and they shrugged off the consequences (1 Samuel 8.10-21). They did not want a man who was involved in God’s Law and would thus disapprove of how they continually disobeyed it, they wanted a shoulder to cry on.
It is probable indeed that Moses’ sketch of a suitable king made them shudder. It described the last kind of king that they would want. By the time that the possibility of kingship arose they had long since laid much of that Law aside in their behaviour with the Canaanites, and they would not want one therefore who would pull them up short over the way that they lived. What they wanted was a king like other peoples had who would fight their battles, and they were ready to meet the consequences.
How they had described what they wanted to Samuel comes out in the way that Samuel gave his warning to them (1 Samuel 8.11-21). Had they opted for a king like Moses described Yahweh would not have been displeased, and Samuel would not have said what he did. But they had made plain what they wanted, and it was inevitably not in accordance with the Mosaic ideal. For by the time of Saul they had long since gone past any such dedication the Law. It would have been cynical in the extreme, no we must say utterly foolish, for a later writer to even have suggested such a kingship as a possibility once kingship was established in the way it was. By then the ways and ideas of kingship was firmly established.
So the thought that anyone would later write like this when there was not even the slightest chance that such a kingship could possibly arise is ludicrous. Such a concept would not even have been considered, even by a religious fanatic. Any later writer would rather have allowed the king more in the way of prestige so as hopefully to win his argument and make his idea attractive. And an extremist would have wanted rid of kingship altogether. The description here is the ideal of the wilderness when no Israelite king had yet been known. Then only could it have been put forward. And then only it might have had a chance. This picture did not even have a remote chance once kingship had been established and enjoyed. Thus it must have been written by someone who was looking forward to a theoretical situation.
End of Excursus.
Chapter 18 The Maintenance of The Levitical Priests and the Levites. Avoidance of The Occult. Yahweh Will Provide A Prophet Over Against False Prophets.
In some ways in contrast with any king were the priests. They were chosen by Yahweh and were not to have personal wealth. They were to be maintained by the people, being dependent on provisions that belonged to Yahweh. Those of the tribe of Levi chosen by Yahweh to minister in His name must also be properly maintained and catered for. These are the ones to whom Israel must primarily look for justice and for guidance in God’s Instruction as we have already seen, as men who minister before Yahweh.
And if Israel, unsatisfied with that, seek a divine message they must not look to those who profess to reveal the future or the secrets of the dead. Rather they must look to prophets raised up by Yahweh, prophets who will be like Moses, the test of whom will be that what they prophesy comes about. That will distinguish the false prophets from the true.
Pronounwise the passage is an interesting one. In the first three verses it continues the third person approach used of the description of the king, ‘he, they’, then in verse 4 turns back to ‘thee’ thou’. This demonstrates the unity of this passage with the previous passage, demonstrating that the words about the king are an essential part of the whole. ‘Thee, thou’ is then used for the remainder of the chapter, stressing both individual responsibility and oneness as a nation, apart from ‘you (ye) shall hearken’ in verse 15 where it suits it as an ‘aside’.
The Maintenance of the Levitical Priests and the Levites At The Sanctuary (18.1-5).
The levitical priests and the Levites who served at the Tabernacle were to be supported by portions of the offerings and sacrifices, and by the offerings of the firstfruits, for they have been chosen by Yahweh to serve Him in His chosen place.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
We note that in ‘a’ the priests are to have no inheritance in Israel but to be totally dependent for their provision on Yahweh, and in the parallel this is so because Yahweh has chosen them out of all their tribes to stand to minister in His name. In ‘b’ their inheritance is declared to be Yahweh, and in the parallel they are to receive the firstfruits of both vegetation and beasts, which are Yahweh’s. In ‘c’ the priests’ dues are prepared for and then described.
18.1-2 ‘The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire and his inheritance. And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he has spoken to them.’
The opening phrase ‘The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi’ raises questions as to whether this covers both levitical priests (the priests the Levites) and Levites (all the tribe of Levi) or just the levitical priests alone. However in Deuteronomy such phrases in apposition regularly represent the item in apposition as signifying something greater than the first phrase. See 3.4-5; 15.21; 16.21; 17.1; 23.19; 25.16. Compare also 3.18 where there is a reduction in the idea. They are never just a description of the same idea. In 2.37; 3.13; 4.19; 5.8; 20.14; 29.10 the clauses in apposition are always of one against a number and therefore not strictly comparable. This would confirm that ‘all the tribe of Levi’ is an extension of, and addition to, the idea of the levitical priests thus referring to both priests and Levites. Significantly there are no examples the other way.
So it is both levitical priests and all the tribe of Levi who were to have no portion in Israel. They would have no tribal area of their own. Nor were they to be given land as individuals. The priestly cities and the levitical cities were to be jointly owned along with the land around them, although individuals would own their own houses. Both did later purchase property for themselves and thus came into ownership of houses and property outside this sphere, but that was not part of the original plan (e.g. 1 Kings 2.26; Jeremiah 32.7-10 with 1.1).
The ideal behind this was that they should be unworldy, independent, and able to keep the civil power in check. Their whole existence was to involve being taken up with Yahweh, Who was their inheritance, with keeping the nation right before Him, and with making known His law and ensuring that His covenant requirements were maintained.
‘They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire (ishsheh) and his inheritance. And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he has spoken to them.’ The levitical priests and Levites will therefore ‘eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire and His inheritance’. Part of each offering made by fire, apart from the whole burnt offerings, was given to the priests (Leviticus 2.3, 10 and often; Joshua 13.14). Yahweh’s inheritance as mentioned here included all that was sanctified to Him and included offerings and sacrifices, firstfruits, tithes, firstlings, and so on, and His specific inheritance to the Levites was the tithe (Numbers 18.24-26), which would include grain, wine and animals (Numbers 18.30 with Leviticus 27.30-33). But the Levites would also share in the peace offerings made by the people, which were offerings made by fire (Leviticus 3.9) as they did in the firstlings (12.11-12, 17-18). Thus was provision made for both priest and Levite out of the variety of offerings made by the people. For a wholesale coverage of this see Numbers 18 where the distinctions are made clearer, although through the years circumstances had expanded on them.
It may also be that ishsheh actually simply denotes gifts and offerings without necessarily meaning ‘by fire’. Compare the use of usn at Ugarit. Note also the threefold use of ‘inheritance’, each use with a slightly different meaning. Yahweh’s inheritance, that which was set apart for Him and given to Him, included all that is mentioned above, including the tithes which He gave to the Levites as an inheritance. His inheritance to the people is the land. But Yahweh Himself, and His service, is the inheritance of the priests and Levites (compare 10.9; Joshua 13.33; Numbers 18.20; Joshua 18.7).
‘They shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he has spoken to them.’ This contrasts with the words spoken about their king. ‘His heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren’. The king was to be one with his brethren in obedience to Yahweh and to His Instruction. His inheritance was to be among them. But the priests and Levites had no inheritance among their brethren. They were lifted up above it. Yahweh was their inheritance. Thus their ideal king was not to have control over priestly activities or over matters to do with the sanctuary. That would be between the priests and Yahweh. They would act as a balance to the king’s powers, especially as they were the experts whom the king would consult when seeking to understand Yahweh’s law.
In Egypt the Pharaohs had always had to recognise the might of the priests while being a god over them. He had constantly manoeuvred with them. Much had depended on the strength of the Pharaoh. But in Israel the king was always to be in submission to Yahweh’s Instruction and was to be submissive to the Sanctuary, and to those who expounded Yahweh’s Instruction. Thus Yahweh, not the king, would still be over all. This will especially come out shortly when we learn of the independent prophet ‘like Moses’. He will speak directly from Yahweh, and both king and priest will have to listen to him. For all are in the end subject to Yahweh’s Instruction and His will.
The Maintenance of the Priests (18.3-5).
18.3 ‘And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw (stomach).’
Here there is an extension to what is give to the priests from the offerings and sacrifices (other than the whole burnt offering), possibly to compensate for the loss of their portion in animals slaughtered in the cities and not sacrificed. They were to be given the ‘shoulder’, the two ‘cheeks’ and the ‘stomach’. Discoveries in the Canaanite sanctuary at Lachish reveal many right shoulder bones of animals suggesting that their priests too received the shoulder from sacrifices. In Leviticus 7.28-36; Numbers 18.8-19 the priest’s portions were the shoulder and the right ‘thigh’ (or breast). This may simply therefore indicate different terminology for similar parts, or an improvement in the priests’ portion, or both. The shoulder was a special waveoffering. The ‘thigh/breast’ was a special heave offering or contribution, but as it was not for the priests generally, but given to the individual priest who offered the sacrifice, it may have been omitted here. It would be assumed without mention due to its special nature and long custom (Leviticus 7.32-34).
Compare here 1 Samuel 2.12-17 where the priests insisted on parts being set aside before the boiling so that they were not soaked, and then claimed further parts as the meat was boiling by ‘pot luck’ (although this method was frowned on). They had, possibly unilaterally, extended their rights.
Note On Differences in Technical Sacrificial Terms.
To say that the technicalities of an ancient cult are not always apparent to us is to understate the case. Technical language would be used in regulations for the cult which had its own specialist meaning, and might be very different from those used in popular speech. Compare how in Roman Catholic usage the 'chasuble', for example, is a technical term, but might in popular usage be simply called a 'priestly garment' or 'robe'. Leviticus/Numbers used technical language, Deuteronomy uses 'popular' language (it is in a speech to the common people). Comparisons are therefore not always easy. So before we try to reconcile the two we have to solve the problem of the meaning of the language.
We must recognise that while our versions translate as best they can, the actual meanings of many ancient Hebrew terms, especially technical ancient Hebrew terms to do with the cult such as are mentioned in Leviticus/Numbers, are not always fully clear to us. It partly depends on how often they were used and in what context. Thus RV/ASV margin has 'shoulder' as a possible alternative rendering for 'thigh' in Leviticus 7.28-36 because they recognised the uncertainty as to the meaning of the word, while the word translated 'shoulder' in Deuteronomy 18.3 usually means 'arm' when referred to men (but of course cannot with domestic beasts). LXX actually translates both as the same word, brachion.
So the Hebrew terminology in use is not as certain in meaning as the English suggests, and comparisons are therefore fraught with difficulty. Deuteronomy is a speech and uses terms in a popular sense giving the general idea. The word translated ‘stomach’, and sometimes 'inner part', is used only in Deuteronomy 18.3 and nowhere else although a cognate is used in Numbers 25.8, where it could simply generally mean a vague 'body'. In both cases the exact meaning has to be guessed at in the context. It could equally be a popular term for the rough equivalent of breast (in beasts breast and belly can be pretty close together). This being so the passages could quite well be saying a similar thing, but merely in different terminology, technical and popular. On the other hand it is equally possible that for different reasons there had been alterations to the detail.
Secondly we should note that it is not at all certain that Deuteronomy 18.3 is referring to the same sacrifices as the more technical verses in Leviticus and Numbers. The latter are referring to certain specific offerings and sacrifices, while Deuteronomy is simply referring to a general 'offering sacrifices'. Furthermore Leviticus is referring to heave offerings, what is 'waved' before Yahweh (difficult with the guts), before being given to the priests, Deuteronomy is referring to what is given to the priests in general, not what is specifically waved before Yahweh, and that from what are not necessarily technical offerings. The cult and related activities were in fact far more complicated than we tend to realise, much of it regulated by custom, something which comes out when we try in our simple way to reconcile everything as though it was not very involved. We must not try to make it simplistic. It was not. If we had a full knowledge of the complicated requirements of and differences in the cult under varying circumstances and a dictionary of its technical terms we might perhaps not have so many problems as we do.
And in all our considerations we have to remember that like any language Hebrew developed. It was relatively primitive at the time of Moses, a tribal language, whereas by the time of the Exile (over 700 years later) it had become much more sophisticated, and even more so by the time of Jesus (another five hundred years). Even if we ignore the technicalities, languages, and the meaning of words, change over long periods (try reading Chaucer in the original). Modern Hebrew may give us a little help as to the meaning of ancient Hebrew, but on the whole it is positively misleading. The only way we can know the meaning of ancient Hebrew is by comparison of the use of terms in different parts of Scripture written at the same period (a problem in itself) combined with a comparison with uses in Ugaritic literature which used a fairly similar script. Where words are rarely used we regularly have to guess, especially in the case of technical terms. We usually do have a general idea as to their meaning, but not so as to be too specific. This being so what are called 'discrepancies' are not necessarily as clear in the Hebrew as it may seem in English versions. Sometimes the attempt at a translation creates an apparent discrepancy that is not actually there in the original. This must ever be kept in mind
End of note.
18.4 ‘The firstfruits of your grain, of your new wine, and of your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him.’
The priests also received the firstfruits, that which ripened first, of the grain, wine and oil, and first fleeces of the sheep, giving them all round provision (compare Numbers 18.12). The fleeces are an addition which had probably become the custom. Deciding what was and was not firstfruits would presumably have been sorted out with Moses by Aaron.
18.5 ‘For Yahweh your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Yahweh, him and his sons for ever.’
The reason for these gifts was that they were the chosen of Yahweh out of all the tribes for the purpose of standing to give priestly service in the name of Yahweh (compare 17.12; 1 Kings 8.11; 2 Chronicles 5.14; for ‘stand to minister’; Exodus 28.43 for ‘to minister’. Contrast 10.8; 2 Chronicles 29.4-11 where it includes the service of the Levites). They, and they alone, had this privilege. The priesthood was their inheritance (Joshua 18.7).
As king, priest and sanctuary dominated ancient society, so here in Deuteronomy all were (as here), or were to be (12.5; 17.15), the chosen of Yahweh, as well as were the people (7.6). All was under His sovereignty.
The Maintenance of Levites Who Elect To Come To Serve At The Sanctuary (18.6-8).
The Levites were to be spread all over Israel. But when they came to serve at the Tabernacle permanently they would need to be provided for.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ it is speaking of the Levite who comes to the place which Yahweh has chosen, burning with seal to serve at the Tabernacle. In the parallel their portion is to be similar to that of the priests and Levites already there. On the top of that they may retain any silver obtained from selling the family home in the city from which he comes. In ‘b’ then he will minister in the name of Yahweh his God, in the same way as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before Yahweh.
18.6-7 ‘And if a Levite come from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he sojourns, and come with all the desire of his soul to the place which Yahweh shall choose, then he shall minister in the name of Yahweh his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before Yahweh.’
It was the Levites and not the priests who tended to be spread around the land. But at times they would seek to take their part in the worship of the sanctuary (not necessarily permanently). Here one comes ‘with all the desire of his soul’. He is fulfilling a great desire. Once there he must be allowed to serve in the name of Yahweh his God, along with all his brother Levites who ‘stand before Yahweh’. To stand before Yahweh is not necessarily a priestly ministry. Compare 10.8; 19.17; 29.10, 15; 1 Kings 17.1; 18.15; 19.11; 2 Kings 3.14; 5.16 see also Numbers 11.16. Nor is ‘to minister in His name’. Compare 10.8. In 2 Chronicles 29 ‘you Levites’ (which includes both priests and Levites specifically distinguished - verses 4-5) are chosen to ‘stand before Him, to minister to Him, and to be his ministers, and to burn incense’, again a mixing of levitical and priestly duties. In 1 Samuel 2.11 the child Samuel ‘did minister to Yahweh before Eli the Priest’. At his young age this could not include direct priestly ministry. In Numbers 8.25-26 the Levites ‘minister with their brothers in the tent of meeting’. The idea is of general service in His Tabernacle.
To be in the Tabernacle courtyard (Leviticus 1.3, 5, 11 and often, see 4.15), or even gathered round it (Exodus 34.23-24), was always to be ‘before Yahweh’. (See also Numbers 7.3; 8.10; 14.37; 15.15; 32.21-22 etc; Deuteronomy 1.45; 4.10; 6.25; 12.7, 12, 18; 16.16 etc).
Examples of Tabernacle service would include repair and maintenance within the limits of where they were allowed to go and making replacements for worn out sections of the tabernacle (compare Exodus 38.21), organisation of visitors who came to the tabernacle and general guardianship (Numbers 1.53), assisting those who found difficulty in slaying their sacrifices (compare Ezekiel 44.11), assisting with sanctifying the house of Yahweh (2 Chronicles 29.16) and certainly later singing and music. Thus they ‘ministered before Yahweh’.
18.8 ‘They shall have like portions to eat, besides that which comes of the sale of his patrimony.’
They were to be given equal shares in all the portions that fell to the Levites. And this was not be affected by any rents they received from letting their own house, or capital received from selling it.
It is not absolutely certain what 'patrimony' includes - the Hebrew rendered baldly translated would be 'the sale concerning the fathers'. The general meaning is, however, clear. When the Levite left his levitical city, or wherever he was resident, and took up residence at the Sanctuary, he had a right to keep any wealth obtained from family possessions, which might include property owned in the levitical city.
Association With The Occult Is Banned (18.9-14).
The nations in the land into which they were about to enter practised all kinds of abominations, things that were hateful to Yahweh. These occult practises are outlined here with a warning that they must be blotted out from the land. Israel are not allowed by Him to take any part in such things.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
In ‘a’ they are not to learn to do all the abominations of the nations who live there, when they enter the land, and in the parallel the abominations of those nations are described. In ‘b’ are listed all who seek to influence the spiritual world and the future who are ‘imperfect’ for they do it in the wrong way, and seek to many influences. in contrast are to be Israel who are ‘perfect’ with Yahweh their God. They seek Him only and have nothing to do with other influences. In ‘c’ the doing of what is described previously is and abomination to Yahweh, and therefore in the parallel because of these abominations Yahweh their God will drive out those nations before them.
18.9 ‘When you are come into the land which Yahweh your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.’
Again the stress is on the fact that this land is being given to them by Yahweh. To practise the abominations described would be an insult to Him. Those abominations were to have no part to play in His land. They must learn to do what Yahweh has commanded (4.1; 5.1) not do according to the abominations of these nations. They had His words. They did not need to look to the occult. And it was His land.
‘Those nations.’ We must immediately ask, which nations? The answer is given in 17.14. It is those nations whom they wish to ape by having a king like them. But they are not nations that they should wish to ape, for they commit abominations, and their kings likewise. Thus though they may in some fashion have a king like them, in reality, as he has already demonstrated, it must be a king who was not really like theirs at all. And in the same way they were not to desire their abominations either, abominations which he now describes.
18.10-11 ‘There shall not be found with you any one who makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practises augury, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a consulter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer.’
While we may not know the exact technical meaning of all the words used here, being not familiar with all the occult practises of the ancients, the general idea is clear, they are attempts to get in touch with and manoeuvre the ‘spirit world’ in one way or another. Kings would use them when seeking guidance or considering battle. Men and women would use them for guidance in the activities of life, in business, in farming, in love. Both would seek to affect them through the methods used by soothsayers, magicians, sorcerers, wizards and necromancers. And they would assiduously follow them, sometimes to disaster. But the lesson for Israel was equally clear, none must be found among them who did these things. They must avoid all contact with the occult, with what was hidden in darkness. They must avoid all attempts to contact the dead.
We do not know precisely what the ‘passing through the fire’ represented (compare 2 Kings 16.3; 21.6), but we know that children were passed through the fire to Molech (Leviticus 18.21; 2 Kings 23.10; Jeremiah 32.35) and that that was almost certainly a child sacrifice (Leviticus 20.2-5). It is mentioned here because of its hoped for magical effects, with the hope being that of determining or discerning the future. The king of Moab used it in desperation when he wanted to turn the course of battle (2 Kings 3.26-27). Compare both Leviticus 20.6 and 2 Kings 21.6 where it was again connected with the occult activities. It was clearly seen as powerfully effective.
For the use of divination (qosem qesemim - to divine divination) compare Numbers 23.23; Joshua 13.22 - of Balaam; Jeremiah 14.14; 27.9; 29.8; Ezekiel 13.6; 21.21; Zechariah 10.2. It was used in order to discover the minds of the gods. Sometimes the verb has a good meaning without magical means, referring to divining through the Spirit. But there were various occult methods. One method described in Ezekiel 21.21 was to shake arrows in a quiver and discover the message from the one that was first ejected. Others included discerning the patterns of birds as they flew, the arrangement of the organs of an animal offered as a sacrifice, or the relationship of the planets to one another. ‘Augury (‘onen - Leviticus 19.26).’ The word may signify reading clouds or muttering incantations.
The ‘enchanter’ (nachesh) may use a cup for divination by watching the reflections in the water, or the configurations of drops of oil on water, or by watching natural events (compare Genesis 44.5, 15; Leviticus 19.26; Numbers 23.23; 24.1). A sorcerer (cesheph - Exodus 7.11; 22.18; 2 Chronicles 33.6; Malachi 3.5) is ‘one who cuts up’, and may indicate the cutting up of herbs for charms and spells to produce magical effects. A charmer (chober cheber- Isaiah 47.9, 12), ‘a knotter of knots’, is one who binds another by magic spells. A consulter of spirits (1 Chronicles 10.13), is a medium or consulter with a spirit of the dead. A wizard (yidde‘oni - Leviticus 19.31; 20.6, 27; 1 Samuel 28.3, 9; 2 Kings 21.6; 23.24; Isaiah 8.19; 19.3) is ‘one in the know’, or ‘one who knows a (familiar) spirit’, from an occult point of view. Possibly one who consults an astral spirit. A necromancer is an enquirer of the dead. Taken together the words indicate the wide varieties of supposed magical influences and fortune telling and attempts to breach the barriers into the spirit world and to contact the dead. All were seen by the ancients as affecting events, but to the people of Yahweh all were forbidden. They were an abomination to Yahweh. It is probable that this passage influenced 2 Kings 17.17; 21.6.
18.12 ‘For whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh, and because of these abominations Yahweh your God drives them out from before you.’
The one who practised any of these things was an ‘abomination’, something hated, to Yahweh. It is for this abominable behaviour that the nations would be driven out before them. The strength of feeling against them indicates that some of their powers were seen to originate from evil sources.
18.13 ‘You shall be perfect with Yahweh your God.’
But His people on the contrary were to walk rightly. They were perfectly to obey the covenant avoiding all such nefarious activities. They were to be free of all such traits. They were to avoid all spiritual influence but Yahweh. They were to be constantly with God, seeking Yahweh’s means of understanding through prophets, through the word, and through the Urim and Thummim. They were to be free from the taint of the occult.
18.14 ‘For these nations, that you shall dispossess, listen to those who practise augury, and to diviners, but as for you, Yahweh your God has not given you permission so to do.’
On the other hand the nations that they will dispossess listened to all these things. What use it would be to them is revealed by the fact that it could not prevent them from being driven out by Yahweh. But Yahweh has not given His people permission to listen to them, for He knows what foolishness they are and what harm they can cause to mankind.
Yahweh Will Raise Up Prophets For Them (18.15-22).
Instead of turning to the occult which can only deceive them they should rather turn to the prophets who will be sent by Yahweh. These verses have been taken to forecast the coming of a great Prophet in the future, and that may certainly be included in the thought, but the general idea is that Yahweh will raise up a prophet, like Moses was when he was in his prophetic mode, whenever needed.
We notice that these prophets would be ‘raised’ not chosen. They were to be Yahweh’s special weapon. They would watch over Judge, king and priest on behalf of Yahweh. They would be the source of revelation from Yahweh. But we must not think of them as being in opposition to either kingship or priesthood. They were only in opposition to bad kingship and bad priesthood. They strove to cooperate with both.
The promise here appears to be more than simply that there would be prophets. Prophets were fairly common in the Ancient Near East, as supposed sources of divine knowledge, and Israel would later have prophets attached to the cult (1 Samuel 10.5, 10-12; 19.20) who could be enquired of and could not always respond (1 Samuel 28.6). These latter are not all condemned and some of the prophets mentioned in Scripture as true men of God probably came from among them. But they were not in general seen as having the powers and authority described here. The ones spoken of here were prophets ‘like to Moses’. Such did not exist during the time of Joshua (34.10).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that the parallels here are contrasts. In ‘a’ Yahweh will raise up true prophets like Moses, and in the parallel they will be known by whether their prophecies come about. In ‘b’ he is a special person chosen as the people’ mediator, to speak to the people the words of Yahweh, and they must listen to him, and in the parallel if he speaks presumptuously he will die. In ‘c’ God will put His words in his mouth and in the parallel God will require it of all those who do not listen to those words.
18.15-17 ‘Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like to me. To him you shall listen, in accordance with all that you desired of Yahweh your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, “Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God, nor let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And Yahweh said to me, “They have well said that which they have spoken.” ’
Moses is probably indicating here that God will constantly raise up prophets for them, one after the other, to arise as needed. They would replace Moses as Yahweh’s mouthpiece. They would be prophets who would be in close touch with God like Moses was. That is the one to whom they must listen. Indeed they themselves had asked God for this. They had said that they did not themselves want to hear the voice of God directly, nor did they again wish to see His great fire. And Yahweh had agreed that they had spoken well. Compare 5.23-28. So it had become necessary for Him to promise to raise up prophets, and raise up a prophet as was required He would.
These prophets were not to come from a dynastic line nor to be simply appointed by the cult. They were to be ‘raised up’. And it was ‘from the midst of your brethren’. They were to be homeborn not foreign. But they were to be raised up in order to bring the word of Yahweh to judge, king, priest and people alike.
‘Raise up.’ We note that these prophets were not to be ‘chosen’ they were to be ‘raised up’ when necessary. They were to be Yahweh’s unique instrument with special power from Him and answerable only to Him. Not all prophets were ‘raised up’ prophets. Many, even though some were genuine, were ‘professional’ prophets.
18.18 “I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like to you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.”
This continues Yahweh’s words. Just as He had raised up Moses so would He raise up other prophets. As each was required so would He raise up a prophet from among them who was like Moses. He would put His words in their mouth, and that prophet would speak to them all that Yahweh commanded. For because Yahweh had raised him up, Yahweh would provide him with the truth that he must speak.
18.19 “And it shall come about, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”
And woe betide the one who will not listen to this prophet whom Yahweh raises up. Whatever he speaks in Yahweh’s name will be required of each man in that generation.
So we have here the promise of a stream of godly ‘raised up’ prophets. It is apparent that, while in many cases connected with them, this promise does not just refer to the general prophets mainly connected with the sanctuaries. Those appear to have been a regular feature of cultic life. This refers to some who will be specially ‘raised up’ as Moses had been.
That is why this passage also came to be understood as referring to one particular prophet, a prophet ‘like to Moses’, one supreme even in comparison with the raised up prophets. Thus in Jesus’ time such a prophet was awaited. Indeed Jesus Himself was asked, ‘Are you that prophet?’ (John 1.21, 25; 6.14). And there can be no doubt that Jesus was ‘that Prophet’ more than any other prophet. He was the new Moses, and yet a greater than Moses, for Moses wrote of Him (John 5.46). And because they refused to listen to Him it was not He Who would testify against them before His Father but it was Moses who would do it, even Moses in whom they trusted (John 5.45), for it was he who had pointed to Him.
False Prophets will Arise. The Test of A True Prophet (18.20-22).
18.20 “But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.”
But the danger was that false prophets would also arise. Let men beware of being false prophets. The position of the prophets was to be so important that anyone who feigned being a prophet was to be put to death. If men professed to be prophets but spoke their own words pretending that they were Yahweh’s, speaking their own wisdom presumptuously pretending that it was God’s, giving commands in His name which had not really come from Him, then they were to die. So also were any who came as prophets in the names of other gods.
18.21 ‘And if you say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which Yahweh has not spoken?” ’
But this would immediately raise the question as to how they were to know whether this was so or not, how they were to know what God had not said and how they were to recognise God’s truth.
18.22 ‘When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh, if the thing follow not, nor come about, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.’
The solution was outwardly simple. If a man speaks in the name of Yahweh, and what he says ‘is not’ and/or ‘does not come about’, then that is the proof that Yahweh has not spoken through him, and that the prophet has spoken presumptuously. Thus they need not be afraid of his words.
The emphasis here is on the fact that Yahweh’s words always have genuine content and that He always does what He says He will do. In view of the non-mention of a positive perspective this would seem to be as much a careful declaration that Yahweh would honour the word of His true prophets as the simple test of a prophet. But the outcome of some prophecies would not be apparent for some considerable time. The people still had to weigh up their words and consider the likelihood of their fulfilment in the light of the Scriptures that they had, and in the light of the covenant.
But the corollary is that if a man speaks in the name of Yahweh and what he says has powerful moral impact and does continually come about, then unless there are grounds for thinking otherwise it would be an indication that he did come from Yahweh. Thus he should be heeded, and his words treasured, especially if he urged them to the fear of Yahweh. And they should listen and fear what he says. A prophet who does not bring them to the fear of Yahweh should certainly, however, not be heeded. Nor should one whose words failed of fulfilment. And certainly one who came in the name of other gods should be rejected immediately.
It will be observed that this proof could not in many cases be fully known at the time of the prophecy, although it would in some be apparent shortly afterwards, for the message of the prophet was regularly concerning immediate and local situations. Thus its manifest truthfulness or otherwise would become apparent. Once the prophet’s integrity was established he could then be trusted. There are many examples of such short term prophecies in Scripture, men who came, spoke truly, and went (Judges 6.8; 1 Samuel 22.5; 2 Samuel 24.11; 1 Kings 11.29; 1 Kings 13.1; and often). But although they disappeared from our point of view they would continue to be known in the community.
In the case of the prophets of whom we know most, because their words were recorded, much of their prophecy was looking into the future that was coming which would take time to unfold, but it is clear from their words that they expected their listeners to use their moral judgment, and recognise the truth of the situation. And that some did so comes out in that their words were preserved.
The very content of the prophecy often demonstrated its own truth. The true prophet’s warnings were unheeded, not because they were manifestly untrue, but because men did not want to hear what they were saying, because their hearts were hardened. We all like men who tell us what we want to hear. Had their hearts been right, and had they thought more deeply, they would have known. A clear example can be found of this in 1 Kings 2.5-18).
Later tests given would be that they must be tested against God’s own words received from the past (Isaiah 8.20). Another that they could be tested by the voice of God’s Spirit within Who would witness to what was true (1 John 1.20, 27). But in the end the prophet was recognised by those whose hearts were right and true to the covenant.
III. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD (19.1-21.9).
In this section the question of different ways of shedding blood is considered. Lying behind this section is the commandment, ‘you shall do no murder’. It should be noted that in some sense it continues the theme of the regulation of justice.
The shedding of the blood of men was always a prominent issue with God (compare Genesis 9.5-6). It is dealt with in a number of aspects.
Chapter 19 The Setting Up Of Cities of Refuge For the Manslayer. Treatment of False Witnesses.
The section from 16.18-18.22 has dealt with setting up the powers in the land for the maintenance of justice and to ensure the keeping of Yahweh’s Instruction (Torah). That had involved setting up the system of justice, the future possible king, the priests and Levites, and the prophets, but one major thing that had not been covered was the way of dealing with a violent death in the land brought about innocently, and thus out of the range of justice. Such a violent death in Yahweh’s land was seen as a serious matter, for it was a violation against God Himself Who had sovereignty over human life. A life over which He had full jurisdiction had been taken within His own land. The situation had to be righted.
But it was also of concern to God that the innocent should not suffer. If the death had occurred accidentally then the death of the slayer was not required. However, this could not be dealt with by an ordinary court because by the time the court convened the man might well be dead, slain by an avenger of blood. For the custom with regard to such deaths was that the dead man’s relatives were seen as having the right to avenge the blood of the dead man on the slayer the moment that they could find him. Indeed it was seen as their duty to seek him out and take blood for blood (compare Genesis 4.14 where Cain was afraid of his father and his brothers. See also Genesis 4.23). They were considered to have the absolute right to avenge the blood of the slain man, so much so that no one, apart from those so appointed by God, would refuse it. Nor could they be found guilty of murder for what they did. It was the only effective method of practical policing and preventing murder available in early tribal societies and all were agreed on it. The problem was that it could then result in blood feuds or innocent persons being killed, something which the cities of refuge were designed to prevent.
This is the only possible real explanation of all the facts. Had the avenger of blood been an official or an independent party he would not have pursued the manslayer in anger.
So God had ordained that cities of refuge were to be appointed as soon as they were settled in the land, where manslayers who claimed to be innocent could flee for refuge and be safe, and where, if there was any dispute, a proper trial could be arranged so as to discover whether the killing was premeditated or accidental (Numbers 35.9-28; compare Exodus 21.12-14). Such cities had already been set up in the part of the country that they then were in, in Transjordan (4.41-43). But once they crossed the Jordan they would be necessary throughout the whole land. Details of these and their purpose is now given.
These cities of refuge replaced the ancient idea of sanctuary at the altar (Exodus 21.13-14) which is testified to in many civilisations and gave the opportunity for a man who took advantage of it to be given the opportunity of a fair trial. If the man was clearly guilt, however, the sanctuary would not save him (see 1 Kings 2.30-34, where Solomon acted as both accuser and judge).
Entry into the city was probably seen as involving a punishment for the man for his carelessness, and as a safeguard in keeping him under observation in case he was more guilty than he seemed. He could not leave the city. It also ensured that the avenger of blood could not slay an innocent man, and satisfied them that at least he could not kill again. It thus had a manifold purpose.
Again in this chapter ‘thee, thou’ predominates, but ‘ye’ occurs in verse 19 where the thought turns to those in the locality.
The Setting Up Of Cities of Refuge And Their Purpose And The Non-Removal of Landmarks (19.1-14).
The idea behind this passage is that the land is Yahweh’s and He has given it to them for them to possess it (verse 2 and verse 14). It is now to be their inheritance (verses 3 and 14). Its purity and integrity must therefore be defended at all costs. In lieu of this He has ordered that the nations at present living in it are to be cut off without mercy (verse 1), for they have defiled it, while any blood shed in the land, other than that justly or accidentally shed, shall be compensated for by the death of the slayer without pity. And because it is His the ancient landmarks must not be removed, for they declare Yahweh’s ownership of the land, and to move them will misappropriate it from Yahweh. The emphasis therefore is on maintaining the land pure and keeping it as Yahweh has originally given it, with all portions remaining as given.
In order for this to be so, however, provision has to be made in case blood is shed innocently. And this is the purpose of the cities of refuge. Those who claim to have shed blood innocently may flee there and be safe, but if when their case is judged they are found to be guilty they are to be handed over to the avengers of blood. So first the Canaanites are to be cut off, then the cities of refuge are to be set up, and then no landmark must ever be removed, for they declare ownership of the land under Yahweh.
It is noteworthy here that verse 14 is deliberately connected with 1-13 by the phrases used. Note ‘land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it’ in verse 2 and the same in verse 14, and ‘which God causes you to inherit’ in verse 3 with ‘your inheritance which you will inherit’ in verse 14.
Note that in ‘a’ once the Canaanites have been (justly) cut off (the assumption is that their eye is not to pity them for they have committed capital crimes in the same way as those in verse 13) and Yahweh gives Israel their land and they succeed them and dwell in their cities, the cities of refuge are to be set up and made easily accessible for manslayers, and in the parallel landmarks are not to be moved in their land (for it has been given by Yahweh), while those who deliberately slay others will be slain without pity in order to compensate for and put away the innocent blood which has been shed. In ‘b’ the one who kills his neighbour unawares may flee there ‘lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer -- and smite him mortally’ and he will then be safe, and in the parallel the one who hates his neighbour and slays him deliberately shall be delivered ‘into the hand of the avenger of blood that he may die’ . In ‘c’ they are to set apart three cities, and in the parallel, if things prosper they must set aside three more cities. In ‘d’ these extra cities are dependent on their being faithful and thus expanding in order to possess even more land.
19.1-3 ‘When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations, whose land Yahweh your God gives you, and you succeed them, and dwell in their cities, and in their houses, you shall set apart three cities for yourself in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it. You shall prepare yourself the way, and divide the borders of your land, which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that every manslayer may flee there.’
The introduction of this passage in this section of Moses’ speech brings out how horrific unnatural deaths were seen to be. Above all ‘crimes’ they were dealt with as something to be looked at on their own. For all life belonged to Yahweh and an unnatural death was therefore to rob Him of what was His and the spilt blood defiled His land. It cried out to Him.
We should note two things about these verses. The first is that they are based on Yahweh ‘cutting off the nations’ (compare 12.29). It is no coincidence that such a phrase introduces a section dealing with violent deaths, the first accidental, the second in war and the third murder. ‘Cutting off the nations’ were deaths that were justified because of the behaviour of those nations. They cleansed the land. But one of the very reasons why they had been cut off was their abominable behaviour. Such activity as would be instanced by a deliberate violent death or the removing of ancient landmarks (an attempt to misappropriate Yahweh’s land) was not to be countenanced in a land that belonged to Yahweh and had been cleansed. It must not be. But equally vital was that innocent blood should not be shed because of it, where the death was accidental. This also had to be prevented. Blood for blood must not punish the innocent.
Secondly we should note the stress in this passage on the fact that Yahweh was now giving the land to Israel. This is stressed in three different ways, ‘whose land Yahweh your God gives you -- your land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it -- your land, which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit.’ Compare verse 14. Also compare 15.4 but even that does not have quite the same extended threefold stress. Here the land is declared with great stress to be Yahweh’s gift to them, it is their possession given to them by Him, and it is what they will inherit from Him. What belongs to Him, and what they have received in this threefold way as such a munificent gift from Him, must not be defiled with innocent blood deliberately taken, nor misappropriated. This is the background to the setting up of the cities of refuge. Vengeance must not be taken in His land on innocent men. It must be prevented. There must be a way of deliverance provided.
This vengeance was to be prevented, by Israel yielding up out of the many cities and houses that He would give them to dwell in, three cities to be cities of refuge (a complete threefold provision). This benefit was ‘for themselves’. It was accomplished by taking the land that He would by then have given them, and which they will inherit, and dividing it into three parts, with a city of refuge in each part, selected for the convenience with which they could be reached (and because they were Levitical cities where the Levites could have oversight over the situation - Joshua 21.13, 21, 27, 32, 38. That this idea of the setting up of the cities was ancient comes out in that at this stage it was anticipated that more would need to be set up, something which did not happen - see verses 8-10).
‘You shall prepare yourself the way.’ Some have seen this as signifying building smooth roads to the cities, but if so it fits rather inconsistently. Thus we might therefore translate as ‘measure yourself the way’, that is, measure the relative distances. The aim is to make the cities as accessible as possible from anywhere within the territory of Israel.
This huge significance of a violent death in the land is stressed elsewhere. Compare the situation in 21.1-9 when a dead body is found where no one knows who has done it, where again innocence has to be demonstrated, and there a death had to take place on behalf of the nearest town, probably as blood for blood to ritually satisfy the avengers of blood. It was not a sacrifice. Possibly it was a substitutionary or representative execution, or, being totally innocent and slain in an innocent place, was bearing blood for the innocent. It demonstrated that if the murderer was found that would be his punishment as determined by that town, thus releasing the town from having vengeance wrought against it.
19.4-6 ‘And this is the case of the manslayer, that shall flee there and live, whoever kills his neighbour unawares, and did not hate in time past, as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the shaft, and lights on his neighbour so that he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live, lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him mortally, whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.’
An example of the kind of manslayer who may flee there and live is now described. It is one who kills his neighbour unawares without having enmity in his heart. Thus for example, one who goes with his neighbour into the forest to hew wood, and he begins his stroke to cut the tree, and the head falls from the shaft and hits his neighbour so that he dies. Such a man may flee to a city of refuge.
He would have to do it quickly. Once the death was known about, the avengers of blood would be incensed and would not rest until they had taken his life. It was agreed by all that it was their family duty. They only knew that their relative had been slain. That is why the city must be accessible, for if the way was long he may be overtaken and his innocent blood shed in Yahweh’s land. And that must not be for he was not worthy of death having killed the other man innocently.
This preventative method was necessary because of the deeply ingrained belief about avenging blood. Simply forbidding retaliation would not have worked. By the time the impassioned men had been told that the death had been innocent, it might have been too late. Even if they had finally been convinced the innocent man might well be dead. In a society where members of a family had to protect each other because there was no one else to protect them such a situation could inevitably arise. The cities of refuge saved the lives of many innocent men.
19.7 ‘For this reason I command you, saying, “You shall set apart three cities for yourself.’
And that, quite briefly, is why Yahweh commanded that they set aside three cities for themselves for this purpose. Then once a man was within one of those cities of refuge everyone in that city was bound to protect him. To slay him there would be murder, itself punishable by death.
19.8-10 ‘And if Yahweh your God enlarge your border, as he has sworn to your fathers, and give you all the land which he promised to give to your fathers, if you shall keep all this commandment to do it, which I command you this day, to love Yahweh your God, and to walk ever in his ways, then shall you add three cities more for yourself, besides these three, that innocent blood be not shed in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so blood be on you.’
And this principle was so important that if God extended their borders even further as He had promised to their fathers, as a result of their keeping the whole of Yahweh’s overall commandment in the covenant, loving Him, and walking always in His ways, then a further three cities should also be set apart so that distances might not become too great, for it was important that innocent blood should not be shed in land that belonged to Yahweh, and was given by Him to them for an inheritance. For if it was shed there once He had given them the land, the innocent blood would be laid at their door. It would be ‘on them’.
This appointment of three more cities in fact never happened because sadly Israel never fulfilled the covenant sufficiently for it to occur. (This again supports the genuineness of the speech. Who would have put something like this in, and why would they do it, if they already knew that it had not happened? It would be realism gone mad). But it does serve to bring out the conditional nature of their position in the land.
19.11-12 ‘But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally so that he dies, and he flee into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him from there, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.’
But if it is proved through witnesses that the man had actually hated his neighbour, and had lain in wait for him, and had risen up against him deliberately in order to smite him mortally so that he died, his fleeing to the city of refuge merely bought him time. The case against him would be examined, and if considered proved, would result in him being handed over to the avengers of blood who could then execute him. In this case it was necessary that he should die so that the land would be cleansed.
This procedure would be carried out by the elders of his city, who, if they examined the facts and thought that there was a good case against the manslayer, could call for him to be handed over for examination. In the wilderness the examination was by the whole congregation (Numbers 35.24-25), but that was not convenient once they were spread throughout the land. So the city elders would then examine him. If he was found guilty he would be handed over to the avengers of blood. If he was found innocent he would be returned to the city of refuge, for there only would he be safe from the avengers of blood. It was the only way to ensure his safety.
However once a High Priest died that in some way dealt with the innocent manslayer’s problem so that he was then free to go wherever he liked with complete immunity from the avengers of blood (Numbers 35.25). We do not know why exactly it was effective. Perhaps it was because in the death of the High Priest all that had previously happened was considered to have ‘died’ with him, with a new era beginning. All could begin again. Thus his guilt was no more. Perhaps because the High Priest, as leading Levite over the levitical cities, was seen as having died bearing for the inhabitants of those special cities the guilt of deaths brought about innocently. Perhaps it was because his death as representative of the whole people was seen as in some way atoning for all blood spilt in innocence by that people.
19.13 ‘Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you.’
No eye should pity the guilty manslayer, any more than they were to pity the Canaanites, for it was necessary for the innocent blood to be avenged so that the guilt for it should not rest on the whole of Israel, and so that Israel might continue to prosper. Thus the cities of refuge did not prevent justice. They prevented miscarriages of justice.
The lessons that come home from these cities of refuge are firstly the seriousness with which God treats deliberate murder, secondly that those who kill by accident should not bear guilt, and thirdly that just as the city of refuge was available for men to find deliverance, so our Lord Jesus Christ will be our city of refuge, even though in our case we are guilty. For as our High Priest He has died for us so that we may be forgiven and go free.
Removal Of Ancient Landmarks.
Almost as criminal as the shedding of innocent blood was the removal of ancient landmarks, either secretly or by use of force. Ancient landmarks were sacred, having been there from time immemorial, marking off Yahweh’s land and indicating that it was His. To move them was to go directly against Yahweh and to seek to appropriate land that had been long marked off by ancient custom in Yahweh’s land. It was to steal directly from Yahweh. And it put those who did it under a curse (27.17). The placing of this among matters dealing with the shedding of blood demonstrates its importance. Nothing would more likely cause the shedding of blood than such a violation of ancient rights.
As we have already seen similar phrases are applied here in verse 14 as in verses 2 and 3. ‘Land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it’ is found in verse 2 and verse 14, and compare ‘which God causes you to inherit’ in verse 3 with ‘your inheritance which you will inherit’ in verse 14. It is the fact that the land is Yahweh’s gift, and is their inheritance from Him, that makes it essential that they shall respect its purity and integrity. They must neither shed blood there nor remove landmarks.
19.14 ‘You shall not remove your neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in your inheritance which you shall inherit, in the land that Yahweh your God gives you to possess it.’
When Yahweh gave them the land as their inheritance to possess, the ancient landmarks that had already been set in place must not be removed. They were ancient markers, and were part of the inheritance, and were to be used to assist in the dividing up of the land, being looked on as sacrosanct. They would then secure the land to its owners. They had been set there before Yahweh gave them the land as their inheritance, and were therefore equally Yahweh’s gift. In a sense they could be seen as having been set there by Yahweh. To seek to move them was to blatantly go against Yahweh’s anciently expressed will. It was to seek to steal what belonged to Yahweh and was lent by Him to another and was not theirs. Compare Proverbs 23.10 where moving a boundary marker is compared with stealing from defenceless orphans. The purpose in doing it could only be in order to defraud Yahweh’s people (Job 24.2; Isaiah 5.8; Hosea 5.10). It was to make the return of land in the year of Yubile more difficult because of the problem of identification. Its being included after the passage on the defiling of the land by the shedding of blood brings out how great a crime it was seen to be. It was to take away someone’s livelihood, thus leaving them to die. And it would cause violence which would almost certainly result in the shedding of blood. But even worse it was direct rebellion against Yahweh and repudiation of His sovereignty.
We may ask what ancient landmarks have to do with us? In fact they teach valuable lessons. Firstly they indicate that God controls all things and has had all things planned from the beginning and has ‘staked His claim’ for us long before we were born. Secondly His concern about their maintenance indicates that God is concerned with all the things of our daily lives. No one can intrude on our lives without God knowing and caring. Thirdly they indicate that all that we have comes from God, and that He has marked it all off beforehand for our benefit. And fourthly it guarantees that our eternal inheritance is secure for it is signposted from eternity.
The Evidence Required Before Conviction For A Crime: The Punishment of False Witnesses (19.15-21).
The section on justice and the governing of the land which began at 16.18 now ends with the principles on which justice must be decided laid out, and with a warning to false witnesses. The first principle is that no one should be condemned simply on the testimony of one witness. The second that a man proved to be a false witness must be punished in accordance with the severity of the charge.
What follows is a case where a man brings a charge against another, and explains what is to be done where that ‘witness’ is proved to have brought a false charge and to be a false witness. It thus also underlines the demand in all cases that one witness is not sufficient. Two or three witnesses are required if a case is to be made satisfactorily.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ the system of accepting testimony must be fair and reasonable, and not be dependent on only one witness, for that would be suspicious, and in the parallel any judgment will thus put away evil from among them. Note the abundance of charges in ‘a’, ‘for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins’ and the abundance of comparisons in the parallel, ‘life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’. In ‘b’ if the charge is brought that a man is a false witness it must be brought before the judges, and in the parallel if after examination he be found to be a false witness he shall be punished accordingly.
19.15 ‘One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.’
No man must ever be condemned on the basis of one witness. Indeed cases where there was only one witness could only be looked on with suspicion. At least two witnesses, and preferably three, were to be required before a matter could be seen as established (compare 17.6). This applied to all cases and was to be the basis of all justice so that men may not be falsely accused by one person out of spite or hatred. The danger that would arise from that is now exemplified by dealing with a case of false witness.
‘For any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins.’ The coverage is wide. It covers all offences, as does the final judgment in verse 21.
19.16-19 ‘If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days, and the judges shall make diligent inquisition, and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and have testified falsely against his brother, then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.’
The section began with a warning that justices must behave justly and rightly (16.18-20). It ends with the requirement for witnesses that they behave in the same way. If a man accuses another of a serious offence, serious enough to be brought before the supreme court consisting of priests and judges in the presence of Yahweh at the Tabernacle, compare 17.9 where judge is singular (here the local judges may have been called in), and on full and careful examination his accusation is seen to be false, then he himself will be punished with the punishment that would have fallen on the other if he had been found guilty. Thus will the evil of false witness be put away from among them.
The fact that a number of judges were called on confirms the seriousness with which this case was being viewed. It may well have been referred to the supreme court because it was a serious charge, and there was only one witness. But the plural may indicate that the judges local to where the men lived had also been called in.
19.20 ‘And those who remain will hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of you.’
And the result will be that all other members of Israel will hear, and fear, and will no longer behave in such an evil way. False witness was, and is, always a problem for justice. Even two or three witnesses might be in collusion, although hopefully an astute judge could question them to demonstrate whether they were reliable. It was such a problem to the courts that this rather drastic treatment was meted out in respect of it. The accuser had desired to bring this punishment on an innocent party, instead it would come on themselves. And the fact that there could be such a false witness evidenced why at least two witnesses must always be required.
19.21 ‘And your eyes shall not pity; life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.’
No pity was to be shown to such a false witness. The punishment should be exactly according to what he was trying to bring on the other, whether life for life (for accusations which could cause the death penalty), eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. It should be noted that this law of retribution was actually a merciful one. It limited the punishment that could be given to a fair basis. Nothing worse must be done to a person than they had done to another. It did not always mean that it had to be literally applied. Agreement could be reached on a lesser penalty or on compensation. But in the final analysis it was the limit past which punishment could not go. The law was common throughout the Ancient Near East. Jesus stressed that the Christian should not use it in personal dealings (Matthew 5.38-39). Christians were to respond in love, even to their enemies and those who offended against them.
Chapter 20. Regulations Concerning Warfare: Promises And Instructions In Respect of War, Both Their Holy War Against The Canaanites and Inevitable Wars Against Neighbours Outside Canaan.
Having dealt with worship by the people (12.1-16.17) and the governing of the people in justice (16.18-19.21) once they enter the land, Moses now deals with the principles and practise of war. For people in those days war was a continual fact of life which could occur at any time. They had to be constantly on the watch and needed to know how to cope with it, and how to behave when they were involved. He did not want them to think just of the invasion. As their mentor he sought to cover their attitude towards all war, both the holy war and the wars that would follow. For he knew that such wars would follow. That will then be followed by a miscellany of Instruction which covers many different aspects of life (21-26).
This follows on naturally from 19.21. Justice allowed for ‘a death for a death, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’. And apart from disease no other fact was more likely to cause such things than war. How then were they to approach war? (It should be noted that the verb used in the commandment ‘you shall not murder’ was never used of death in warfare).
So in this chapter Moses is laying down a pattern for future warfare. Firstly he gives a vivid portrayal of what the preparation for battle will be like, and what their attitude should be in facing such a battle. Then he speaks on how they are to approach the taking of cities. And finally he explains what their attitude should be with regard to the environment, thought of especially in terms of trees. This covers the three important aspects of war in those days, approach towards the battle, approach towards the siege, approach towards the environment (for the land has to be lived in after the war). In process of this he naturally deals with the Holy War ahead against the Canaanites, but his prime aim is to prepare for all war.
He does not just lay down a pattern for the invasion. He does that within the framework of a revelation of how all their wars are to be fought in the future. He deliberately talks in such a way that they will feel that the invasion is just an interlude to be followed by a future living in and defending of the land. One of the important things in all war is to see what lies beyond. Men boost their hearts by singing of what will be once the war is over.
Furthermore he wanted them to know that if they were to be worthy of Yahweh and gain victories through His power, His people must behave rightly when at war, and during that warfare. In such war Yahweh sought their trust and their obedience. Here he was laying down an attitude towards war. He had the long distance in mind as well as the near view.
He begins by warning against fear of the enemy. That is always a great problem in war. But he points out that for them that is foolishness, for Yahweh, the God of battle, the Man of war (Exodus 15.3), has promised to be with them. He assures them that before they have to fight each battle Yahweh’s own representative, ‘the Priest’, will encourage them prior to the battle, assuring them that Yahweh is fighting alongside them. He then goes on to deal with the fighting speech that would come before all battles, in which an offer would always be made to anyone who so wished that they withdraw before battle commenced. If they did not wish to fight, Yahweh would not require it of them (compare Judges 7.2-8). So when they fought it would be because they had chosen to do so. No response would probably be expected to the offer, for none would want to be branded a coward, but it made all feel that they were acting together as one as willing volunteers.
He then lays down clear instructions about sieges. Apart from the Canaanites, who were doomed to judgment, cities must always be given the chance to surrender, and if they did so were to be treated with mercy. But no such offer was to be made to the Canaanites. They were to be totally destroyed because of the pernicious influence they would otherwise have in the future.
Finally no fruit bearing tree should be cut down when preparing for siege warfare. That would be shortsighted. These would provide food for the troops, and would be needed to provide food for the future. And all other trees should only be used as necessary for the siege. It was a specific example which declared, ‘have regard to the environment’. Moses often uses specific examples to give a wider meaning as we shall see later.
Again ‘thee, thou’ predominates, but ‘ye, your’ occurs in verses 2-4 where the battlegroup is in mind (contrast 21.10, where, however, the individual soldier is very much in mind).
Preparation For Battle (20.1-9).
Israel was on the verge of a holy war, and instructions as to how to face up to such a fact were very necessary. They were not a warlike people, or a trained army, and what faced them would be daunting. Nor were their warleaders particularly experienced. All would have to learn as they went along (Judges 3.2). They had, however, made a good start against the Amorite kings, Sihon and Og.
Moses, who had probably been trained in warfare in Egypt, and may well have been calling on that training, therefore felt it necessary to provide some guidance. This was given here in the form of a rallying cry to the troops rather than as instruction to the generals, which would no doubt privately be given later in more detail. He recognised that prior to any war and any battle it was always important for the troops to be gathered in order to encourage them, and strengthen their nerve. The hope was that they would then fight the better. They needed to see quite clearly what it was that they were fighting for, and to have their courage bolstered.
So here Moses began by reminding them that they must always remember that because they were fighting at Yahweh’s command He would be with them so that they did not need to fear defeat. Let them never forget that through His help they had defeated the mighty Egyptians who had sought to prevent them from leaving Egypt. They should remind themselves of this before all battles, and especially when the enemy appeared exceptionally strong. The Egyptians had appeared invincible, but let them remember what had happened to them.
Analysis partly using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the priest approaches to speak to the people, and in the parallel the officials make an end of speaking to the people. In ‘b’ they are exhorted not to be afraid and in the parallel the fearful are to be released. And central in ‘c’ and parallels are the threefold challenges to others which they are to keep in mind ‘lest they die’.
20.1 ‘When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and see horses, and chariots, and a people more than you, you shall not be afraid of them, for Yahweh your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.’
In the near future they would have to go out to do battle with many enemies. But whenever the war was being fought at Yahweh’s command they need never be afraid of the size or strength of the armies that they found themselves facing, nor of their horses and chariots. They should rather remember that Yahweh their God, Who had brought them out of the land of Egypt and Who had without their help smashed the Egyptian charioteers, would be with them. They could therefore face them without fear.
But even with God on their side, he realised that the sight of the opposing army would often bring a chill to the heart, especially to the more inexperienced. For the opposing army would yell and shout out its war cries, and clash its shields, seeking to intimidate them, and it would parade its chariots. (And as far as possible they would retaliate in the same way). The thought of facing charging horses and chariots could hardly be other than totally unnerving to a people who had rarely, if ever, faced them, and had no chariots of their own. Facing an armed man was one thing, but facing a charging chariot was another, and he knew that such an experience would demand the highest courage, and the best use of the ground. At such a time they must remember his words, ‘Do not be afraid of them. Yahweh your God is fighting for you and is with you.’ Did they not have the promise that Yahweh would make the panic far worse for their enemies? Whatever they were feeling He would sow in their enemies’ hearts worse fears and dismay so that they could not stand before them (2.25; 11.25; Exodus 15.14-16; Joshua 10.10; Judges 4.15)
We too have to face spiritual battles on behalf of Christ, sometimes seemingly insurmountable. At such a time we also can be sure that in our spiritual lives the Enemy will make the problems we face seem as daunting as possible. Indeed if we continually look at the problems we might well be overwhelmed. But as with Israel the secret is to look to God. He will be our strength, and He will fight for us. What will the Enemy be able to do then? Let us therefore trust and not be afraid (Isaiah 12.2). If he yells at us with the equivalent of fiery darts, we must retaliate with words of Scripture.
20.2-4 ‘And it shall be, when you draw near to the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak to the people, and shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies. Do not let your heart faint. Do not be afraid, nor tremble, nor be you frightened at them, for Yahweh your God is he who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.” ’
Thus he assured them that prior to battle the Priest himself, the very living representative of Yahweh, would come before the Israelite army and encourage them with a last minute address, guaranteeing for them that God was with them. They would know that all necessary ritual had been performed and the Urim and Thummim consulted. The presence of this great and revered man speaking with such confidence in Yahweh’s name would be a huge encouragement.
He would point out that they need not be faint-hearted in spite of the approaching battle because Yahweh was with them. Note the threefold commands, ‘Do not be afraid, nor tremble, nor be you frightened at them.’ We are possibly to see here a graduating of fears. First the feeling of apprehension, then the growing fear, and then the terror. And they would be expected to remember that that was exactly what Yahweh had promised would be how their enemies were feeling (Exodus 15.14-16). But this should not happen in their case. They were rather to recognise that Yahweh was going with them, and that He would fight on their behalf. He would deliver them. When His people were in trouble they should remember that ‘Yahweh is a man of war!’ (Exodus 15.3) and would be there with them. On their side was the captain of Yahweh’s host (Joshua 5.14).
In the same way, once we remember that God is with us, and the words of Jesus, ‘Lo, I am with you always’ (Matthew 28.20), how can we be afraid as we face the battles that lie ahead in our Christian lives?
20.5-7 ‘And the officials shall speak to the people, saying,
Once the priest had completed his encouragement, the officials (these were the ordnance officials not the battlefield commanders) were to question their motivation and their courage, almost certainly with stereotyped words. It was an official offer that if they really wished to do so they could withdraw. It even gave grounds for doing so. And the grounds were based on the very things that they were fighting for. Nothing could be worse for an army than to be weakened by doubters. But the verse reads like a stereotyped speech. The men would know every word that was coming. We can imagine Abraham standing before his men and saying something along similar lines to his troops.
The basic principle was that if they were stood there quivering because they were rather thinking of their new house which they had not lived in, or their new vineyard of which they had not eaten, or their new betrothed whom they had not yet made love to, let them return home, lest they die in battle and lose the opportunity, if that was what they wanted Note the threefold emphasis on ‘let him go and return to his house lest he die in the battle’. It faces all up to the possibility that lay before them, with the implication that they might be afraid. And it brands all who respond as cowards.
If this was to be taken at face value we can think of nothing more deflating for the remainder of the army than such a speech with its stress on the fact that they might die in battle. That is not the main idea that you plant in men’s minds just before a battle. Rather it was bringing home concerning each individual who departed why he was leaving, it was ‘lest he die in battle’. They would be, and would be branded as, cowards. Rather the expectancy was surely that the spirit would be such that all would respond in the same way. They would see such a death as glorious. Not a man would move. The last thing they would want their comrades to think was that they were afraid to die in battle. If the choice lay between house, vineyard and betrothed, or dying gloriously in battle, they would choose rather to die in battle, at least in front of their comrades.
So it is open to question whether this should be seen as offering serious exemptions or should simply be seen as ‘war talk’. Was it just challenging them as to whether they wanted to excuse themselves and slip away? Was it putting them on the spot as to what choice they would make? Was it saying, do you really want to put such things, which Yahweh has given you, in the way of fighting for Yahweh? Or was it rather a way of reminding them of what they were fighting for, and an attempt to rouse their courage, with the aim of making them feel at one for the battle ahead, and ready to die in battle? Was it rather saying, “Remember what you are fighting for, your homes, your fields, your families, and take courage, and do not fear death in battle.”
For they must have been very much aware that they were far more likely to lose their new house, their new vineyard or their new betrothed, or not have them at all, if they did not fight. And none would want to be the first to be seen as backing down before their fellow soldiers. But unquestionably having to face up to their nerves in this way would powerfully assist them, and give them inner confidence. And the probable aim was that all should stay.
This would seem to be confirmed by the insistence that all the men of the two and a half tribes commit themselves to crossing the Jordan and fighting with their brothers (Numbers 32.16-27). Had they been able to use these reasons for avoiding doing so it would have made life so simple for them. After all most of them actually were building or occupying new homes, planting new vineyards, and many would be becoming betrothed as a result of the opportunity for settling down. Most could thus have opted out on these grounds. Yet to a man they asserted their determination to leave their loved ones until the invasion had been successful (Joshua 1.16-18).
Indeed the words applied particularly to them. To begin with they were the ones who had already received or built new homes. They would already have planted vineyards. They were challenged on a reality. The others would listen and recognise that that was what their comrades now had and that they were fighting for that too. For their comrades it was a reality, for them it was their dream which would gradually step by step become a reality.
The truth is that it is doubtful if the officials would expect anyone to respond to this offer. Had it been intended to be taken seriously Moses would have laid it down as an offer to be made some time previously, not on the verge of going to battle (which is specifically stated). We must remember that for a man to wait for the new fruit in his vineyard could take four years (Leviticus 19.23-24). Could men really be let off the fighting for four years? And while the dedication of a house might be ritually important, it would only take a short while, and could have been fitted in on an emergency basis, unless the significance of ‘dedication’ was that of living in it for a time, in which case how long a time? But could that replace the privilege of fighting for Yahweh? Presumably also the betrothal still awaiting consummation was not intended immediately to result in marriage, for provision would genuinely be made well before the battle for a newly married man not to be called up in the first year of his marriage (24.5), so that he could ensure the continuation of his house by having children. Thus these reasons appear to fall short of ones that could really be relied on. Rather they emphasised to them that some of them had houses, and vineyards, and women that had been given to them by Yahweh that they would not keep if they did not fight bravely, and to the remainder it spoke of what similarly would yet be theirs.
Those who have stood in line and have heard officers offer the opportunity of backing down from a dangerous mission would know exactly the position. All stood firm. Not one of them would even think of doing anything else. And that very fact would bind them together as comrades in arms.
And this makes sense of ‘lest you die in battle’. If it was said in such a way that it was intended to make men think seriously of the possibility it was a real flattener, but if it was said to all in a tone that indicated that they were all men of such courage that they would not even consider the question, then it would be a booster (men being what they are).
Some commentators do, however, see these as a genuine provision for exemption from fighting, given on the grounds that Yahweh could save by many or by few (1 Samuel 14.6). The idea then is that the opportunity of enjoying Yahweh’s inheritance should be able to be enjoyed before men had to return to arms, enjoying their new houses, their new vineyards and their new wives. They should be able to ‘enter into their rest’. After all, these things were the essence of what being in the land was all about, and the loss of these was precisely what would be the result of future disobedience (28.30). This would still leave the older, more experienced warriors available for battle. But this view would remove from the army most of the young men in their fighting prime on a permanent basis, for it was a pattern for the future. And the real question would be, how could the young men live with themselves after that, especially when the returning heroes came home?
20.8 ‘And the officials shall speak further to the people, and they shall say,
The final challenge would be to the fainthearted, following a similar pattern. Note the changes which deliberately bring home the ignominy of the challenge. The noble personal challenge has been replaced by one that brings home the cowardice lying behind any response. One can almost hear the sneer in the voice, and the suggestion that such a person might be undermining all his comrades.
This would give an opportunity to anyone who was so terrified that they could not face the battle to leave before they weakened their fellow-soldiers with their fears. If a man was so afraid that he would step forward out of the ranks before his fellow soldiers and demonstrate such a fact he would have to be in a blue funk. If that were so it was better that he withdrew before the battle lest he discourage others. But again few, if any would be expected to accept. The purpose was to give all a psychological boost by their remaining standing in line, and the sense that they were there because they had chosen to be.
It is true that in Gideon’s case a large number did take advantage of such an offer. But they did it en masse. That was probably because all who took advantage of it had already agreed that really they had no chance, were resentful of Gideon’s call to arms, and as a whole were very reluctant to fight, and therefore, as one, took advantage of the anticipated offer when it came. They acted in unison. They resented Gideon’s call and had no desire to fight. Whole units withdrew together. That was a very different situation.
An example of what fearful talk among warriors could do is also found in the same context in Judges 7.13-14. Those men were beaten even before battle began.
20.9 ‘And it shall be, when the officials have made an end of speaking to the people, that they shall appoint captains of hosts at the head of the people.’
Once the preliminary encouragements and offers had been given, and duly rejected by lack of response, duties would then be allocated. While the Israelite army was probably not a fully efficiently trained fighting force, the thought is not that they were to start from scratch deciding who would act as captains, but that the already appointed captains should be allocated their responsibilities, and set in place. Once this was done everything would be ready for battle. The placing of this arrangement last is not accidental. The point is that the actual leaders of the battle were of least importance to the outcome. What was most important was that Yahweh was with them, and then that the people were at the ready, trusting Yahweh and eager to respond to His call. In a modern army appointment of the leadership would be the priority, but here it was Yahweh’s presence with them and their faith in Him that was the priority.
In reading this passage we should call to mind the noble Uriah the Hittite. He refused to return to his house while on duties which brought him back to Jerusalem, even when offered the opportunity; he refused to go home to sleep with his wife even though the chance came; for the men of Israel were living under war conditions and he knew that he could do no other than rough it with them (2 Samuel 11.2-13). This was the spirit that these seeming exemptions were intended to foster.
It should be the same spirit that emboldens the soldier of Christ. We are told not to look around at the possible luxuries that could be ours but to ‘endure hardness as good soldiers of Christ’, not being entangled with the affairs of this life in order that we may please Him Who has chosen us to be soldiers (2 Timothy 2.3-4). We should not be saying, ‘once I have my house to rights, and my garden established, and my business booming, and have sorted out my life partner, I will be able to serve God.’ But rather, ‘we are on the Lord’s side, Saviour we are thine’.
Instructions For Besieging A City (20.10-20).
Israel had already experienced sieges in their battles with the Amorite kings. Once they had entered Canaan they would also have to besiege Canaanite cities. There total slaughter would be the order of the day. But Moses did not want them to see what they had to do with the Canaanites as an example of how they should generally behave. He saw further ahead and recognised that even though they dwelt securely in the land it would not be without effort. He was well aware of the international situation. Times would come when they would be invaded, times would come when they would have to invade their neighbours too. It was therefore important that they recognise the difference between how they should treat those neighbours and how they should treat the Canaanite cities. Israel was not to make itself a name for being remorseless. The principle of total destruction was to be limited to the Canaanites. It was not to apply to all.
Some may ask why Israel needed to invade its neighbours once Yahweh had given them their own land. The simple answer is that it is doubtful in fact whether they would be given any choice in the matter. Surrounding nations would attack Israel if they thought it was easy pickings, and especially once the nations themselves had a strong king. Once an aggressive king took the throne neighbours could soon become belligerent. The question was not if they would, but when they would. These things all depended on how strong kings were and what glory they sought. Then Israel would either have to make a pre-emptive strike or fight back.
‘Going forth to war’ was often seen as almost like hunting, a sport to be engaged in when the right season came around (2 Samuel 11.1). All kings who were capable had an eye for it and an eye for booty. See for example Genesis 14 and Psalm 2 and the Book of Judges where different nations are pictured as engaging in war against Israel in Canaan. These were not isolated situations. So the regulations were made in order to control future warfare and in order to prevent too harsh treatment of cities that became involved. Those who yielded without a fight would be treated mercifully. Those who fought back were to be treated more harshly, but even then more mercifully than they would have been by others. It was a harsh and cruel world. The slaying of the men of military age was a precaution against them joining another enemy and organising reprisals. There was no way of keeping them in POW camps, while, let loose, they could be a terrible danger But the main point being made is that the cities were not to be treated in the same way as they had been told to treat Canaanites. For what follows re-emphasised what must be done to the Canaanites. And that was total. The point thus being made is that other enemies should not be treated so severely.
So Moses is here seemingly concerned to deal overall with the general principles on the basis of which they should make war, before coming down to the particulars of what first lay ahead. War must on the whole not be seen as an excuse for a bloodbath.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ when they draw near to a city of people outside the land, to fight against it, if an offer of peace is made the people within it will simply become tributary, but in the parallel the nations who dwell in Canaan will teach them to do after their abominations, and thus must be blotted out, otherwise they would cause them to sin against Yahweh. In ‘b’ if the city that they draw near to makes war then Yahweh their God will deliver it into their hand, and they must them smite all its males with the edge of the sword, and in the parallel when they take the cities which have been given to them by Yahweh their God as an inheritance they must save nothing alive that breathes, but utterly destroy them. In ‘c’ they must in the first case keep the women, children and cattle alive, and take them for a prey for themselves, and in the parallel this is the more merciful behaviour expected when dealing with cities which are not cities of the nations of Canaan.
20.10-11 ‘When you draw near to a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace to it. And it shall be, if it make you answer of peace, and open to you, then it shall be, that all the people that are found in it shall become tributary to you, and shall serve you.’
In the case of the cities of neighbouring countries, whenever they approached one to fight with it they must offer peace terms. And if the city accepted those terms and surrendered, the surrender was to be accepted. They would then become tributary to Israel and be their ‘servants’, that is, subject to forced labour and paying tribute.
20.12-14 ‘And if it will make no peace with you, but will make war against you, then you shall besiege it, and when Yahweh your God delivers it into your hand, you shall smite every male of it with the edge of the sword, but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all its spoil, shall you take for a prey to yourself, and you shall eat the spoil of your enemies, which Yahweh your God has given you.’
If, however, the city refused to surrender they were to besiege it, and when God delivered it into their hands, while they were to put to the sword all the men, they must preserve alive women, children and cattle, and may take all the spoil for themselves. They would be free to partake of all the edible spoils and keep the remainder for their later use.
This appears very harsh to us, but it was in fact merciful in terms of the view of those days. In contrast many armies would instead rape and slaughter the women and dash the children against a convenient wall (Isaiah 13.16; Hosea 13.16; Nahum 3.10; Psalm 137.9, in this last case the Psalmist had recently watched it happen). The slaughter of the men was necessary for there was no provision for taking prisoners-of-war and they dared not leave them to their rear, or in order to organise reprisals, as they advanced further (although a good many may well have made their escape). This is simply giving permission for what was unfortunately, but necessarily, standard practise of the day while meanwhile demanding mercy for the women and children.
One thing, however, this treatment brings out in their favour. Israel were clearly not simply invading in order to get spoils and obtain tribute. If they had been, preservation of the male population to be slaves and provide the tribute would have been necessary. This was either a retaliatory punitive expedition, or a necessary subjection of a belligerent neighbour. The final aim was defensive.
20.15 ‘Thus shall you do to all the cities which are very far off from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.’
This was how they should behave towards neighbouring cities outside the country, that were not cities belonging to those now about to be named. But now he comes down to main point for the present which was to show how they should deal with the cities in the land.
20.16-18 ‘But of the cities of these peoples, that Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them; the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as Yahweh your God has commanded you, that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done to their gods. So would you sin against Yahweh your God.’
However in the case of Canaanite cities as described, once they were taken nothing that breathed was to be left alive. Compare 7.1-5. What ‘nothing that breathes’ means is then made clear, it is the peoples of the land. All without exception must be destroyed, men, women and children, so that there will be no danger of idolatry again rearing its head in the land. They were all ‘devoted’ to destruction. This was so as to avoid the danger of Israel themselves becoming rebels against Yahweh’s covenant. But in most cases, unless told otherwise (e.g. Joshua 6.17-19) they could keep the cattle and spoils.
This was to be seen in the light of the fact that God had decreed the destruction of these nations because of the abomination of their ways. They had been sentenced to death for their idolatrous behaviour. It was His way of carrying His judgment out. It was not to be seen as a normal way of doing battle. It was a purifying of the land.
‘The Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite.’ The description indicates ‘all peoples living in Canaan’. The sixfold description probably emphasises this, being three intensified. These nations were regularly mentioned in previous books in differing descriptions, sometimes sevenfold (7.1; Genesis 15.19-21; Exodus 13.5; 23.23, 28; 34.11).
The lessons from all this for us today are general ones They are that sometimes we do have to be harsh in dealing with what can lead men astray, but that where we can be compassionate we should be, and that we should recognise the dreadfulness of the sin which caused these awful things to fall on mankind. For we can look at what followed. We can see how Israel failed to obey Yahweh and allowed the Canaanites to live among them, and how this caused them to fall as well. And how it finally destroyed the dream of God’s kingdom on earth. Disobedience to this commandment thus brought an awful cost.
The Preservation of Trees (20.19-20).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the siege is a long one but in making war against them they must not cut down the trees as a matter of policy, while in the parallel they can be used to build siege works while the siege is still in progress. In ‘b’ they must especially not cut down the trees from which they can eat, while in the parallel they may destroy and cut down the trees which are not trees that produce food if necessary.
20.19 ‘When you shall besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them, for you may eat of them, and you shall not cut them down, for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged by you?’
An important principle was now being laid down, the preservation of trees in warfare. One of the worst crimes of the later Assyrians and Babylonians, shared also by the Egyptians, was their destruction of trees (Isaiah 37.24; 14.8). But however long Israel were besieging a city they must not cut down the fruit trees. Indeed they might well need to eat from them. And they should consider that the trees are not men. Trees would not fight them or stab them in the back. They were there simply for man’s benefit. Again there is the stress on mercy wherever possible.
20.20 ‘Only the trees of which you know that they are not trees for food, you shall destroy and cut them down, and you shall build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it fall.’
The only trees that they should cut down were those which were not fruit trees and which were needed for siegeworks. It was permitted to cut these down for the purposes of building siege weapons, including ladders for scaling walls and protective defences behind which they could find shelter.
Regulation Concerning Violent Death Where The Murderer Is Not Known (21.1-9).
While for convenience we are splitting up Moses’ speech into parts it should be noted that it is our arrangement and not his. In fact as we have already noted chapter 19 connects back to what has gone before, but also to here. There are some close parallels between the verses that follow here and that chapter. Both stress the gift of the land (compare 19.1 with 21.1), both deal with a problem raised by a death; both refer to the putting away of innocent blood from among them (19.13 with 21.9); both stress that all Israel must play their part in remedying the situation. Thus there is a continuation in themes
So it should be noted here that Moses whole speech is interwoven and cannot be fitted quite so easily into our patterns. In this chapter the theme of violent death, which began at 19.1 is continued, by dealing first with the question of the discovery of a dead body (21.1-9), and then that of the body of executed criminals which are publicly displayed (21.22-23). Also continued is the theme of warfare in chapter 20, by dealing with the question of marriage in relation to captive women (21.10-14). Contained within this are important regulations concerned with inheritance (21.15-17) and authority (21.18-21).
An Unidentified Murder (21.1-9).
The first part of chapter 21 follows in the train of 19.1-13 and 20.1-18 in each of which chapters blood had been shed, in the first case innocently, with a proviso that where it turned out to be deliberate murder the death of the murderer should result, in the second by war, where it was not murder. Neither therefore required immediate satisfaction. The principle established here in 21-1-9, along with 19.11-13, is that the deliberate violent shedding of blood illegally must be requited by a death. There must be immediate fulfilment of the principle, a life for a life. Blood had been spilt in Yahweh’s land, and there must be a recompense (not an atonement, it is not a sacrifice). If the culprit cannot be found then a substitute or representative is required which itself must be totally innocent. This must be provided by the nearest city. It is an acknowledgement by those closest to the murder that they are partly at fault for having allowed it to happen in their vicinity, but it is also a declaration before Yahweh that they are totally innocent and do not know who the guilty party is. It is a declaration that if the murderer is ever discovered he will be executed.
By this the taking of a life was distinguished from all other crimes. That crime alone demanded immediate reparation whether the guilty party was discovered or not. It was a direct crime against God.
The whole of this chapter is ‘thee, thou’.
The Undetected Murderer (21.1-9).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ someone has been slain, but it is not known who has smitten him, and in the parallel the innocent blood will be put away from them when they do what is right in the eyes of Yahweh. In ‘b’ they shed innocent blood non-sacrificially and in the parallel they ask that they may be ‘forgiven’ so that innocent blood might be put way from the midst of them. In ‘c’ the priest come near and their word is to be heard on the issue, and in the parallel the elders of the city respond with their word that their hands have not shed the blood and their eyes have seen nothing concerning it.
21.1-3a ‘If one be found slain in the land which Yahweh your God gives you (thee) to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who has smitten him, then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are round about him who is slain,’
If a dead body of someone killed violently was found anywhere in Yahweh’s land, lying out in the open country, and enquiry did not reveal a culprit, the elders and judges of the surrounding towns must be called in, together with the priests (verse 5) from the Central Sanctuary. This would be something that affected all Israel. No doubt they would first of all make enquiries. But then they had to assess which city or town was nearest to the spot. The probability must be that someone in that city and town was responsible. Furthermore it was a slight on that city or town that it had happened in their neighbourhood.
21.3b-4 ‘And it shall be, that the city which is nearest to the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which has not been worked with, and which has not drawn in the yoke, and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer to a valley with running water, which is neither ploughed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley.’
Once the particular city had been selected, the elders of that city were to take a heifer from the herd which had never toiled and which had never worn a yoke. Thus it was to be in pure form, and untainted by earthly activity. It was then to be taken down into a valley where there was running water, something not man made and a symbol of purity and life, and a valley which was not at the time either ploughed ready for sowing, or actually sowed, thus itself being ‘virgin land’. And there the heifer’s neck was to be broken.
We note first the continual emphasis on the fact that all connected with this was to be pure and untainted by the activity of man. What died was not to be connected with the activity of the city and its inhabitants, nor with the people of Israel. While of earth it was to be totally neutral. It was to represent the death of an ‘unknown’ which had no connection with the city. The running water probably indicated a valley that was being constantly renewed with purity and life by Yahweh. Nothing that was utilised was contaminated by the recent use of it by man.
Secondly we note that the slaughter of the heifer had no direct connection with where the body had been found. It was the whole land that was being cleansed, not that particular spot.
21.5 ‘And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near; for them Yahweh your God has chosen to minister to him, and to bless in the name of Yahweh; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.’
All this was to be overseen by the levitical priests. This is the first time they have been called ‘the sons of Levi’ (compare 31.9) but it is very little different in significance to ‘the priests, the levites’ (17.9, 18; 18.1; 24.8; 27.9), except that it lays stress on their source and explains the phrase ‘the priests the levites’ as simply meaning the same. For also stressed is that they were chosen by Yahweh to minister to Him, and to bless ‘in the name of Yahweh’, a right restricted to the levitical priests (Numbers 6.23-27). These men must oversee every discussion, every decision, and every action with regard to the matter. In the end it will be they who declare the land to be again ‘blessed’. It is clear therefore that some actual ritual would be performed. But consonant with Moses’ approach in Deuteronomy he only expands on the part that the people have to play.
21.6-7 ‘And all the elders of that city, who are 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 have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it.” ’
The elders of the city were then to wash their hands over the heifer whose neck had been broken. The breaking of the neck specifically revealed that it was not a sacrifice, compare Exodus 13.13. This washing of hands declared them to be innocent of any connection with the death of the slain man (see Psalm 26.6; 73.13, and compare Matthew 27.24). Thus they were then to answer and say, ‘our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it’. By this they meant ‘we as a city’ for they were speaking on behalf of the whole city before Yahweh. ‘Nor have our eyes seen it’ signified that they were swearing before Yahweh that they had not seen the actual shedding of the blood. None of the city (as far as they were aware) had been present at the scene when the murder was committed. One purpose in this was to put the elders to the test before Yahweh as to whether they really were innocent. They would be aware that to do this before Yahweh, if in fact they knew who the murderer was, would be blasphemy.
‘Answer and say’ may indicate giving Yahweh an answer to His unspoken question about their ‘guilt’, but more probably it indicates that it was a response to a charge from the priests, following a ritual pattern.
21.8 “Forgive (cover), O Yahweh, your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and do not permit innocent blood to remain in the midst of your people Israel.” And the blood shall be forgiven them.’
They were then to seek Yahweh’s forgiveness that it had happened in the territory for which they had oversight. The word signifies ‘to cover’ and is elsewhere connected with atonement. But here a different kind of covering was sought, a covering that would hide what had been done in the eyes of Yahweh. No one was actually taking the blame. But note that the ‘covering’ was for the whole of Israel who needed to have the stain removed from them. All were involved in a violent death that had taken place in Yahweh’s land, and would not remain satisfied until the murderer was caught and executed. For in the last analysis they were responsible for what happened in the land. But meanwhile they would be forgiven for the blood that had been shed. It would not be counted against them.
Note also the emphasis on the fact that they were the redeemed people of Yahweh. He had redeemed them in the past, He would surely therefore now redeem them from and help them in this situation.
21.9 ‘So shall you put away the innocent blood from the midst of you, when you shall do that what is right in the eyes of Yahweh.’
By acting in this way and doing what was right in Yahweh’s eyes (executing the guilty person by proxy in a neutral environment) they put away ‘the innocent blood’, that is the shed blood concerning which they were innocent, from the midst of them (compare 19.13). One importance of this would be that no avenger of blood could now blame the city. Another, of course, was that neither would Yahweh.
It is of interest that both the law code of Hammurabi and the law codes of the Hittites allowed for compensation in such cases from the nearest city to the family of the slain. In the case of the Hittites the city was only responsible if within a certain range. But no ceremony like this is known. In the Ugaritic Aqhat legend Danel located the place where his son was slain and cursed both the murderer and the cities which were nearby.
As far as we are concerned the lesson for us is that God does look on us as partly responsible for what happens in our own environment. If we do not do all that we can to maintain the purity from sin of our own towns and cities and countryside we must share the blame. It is not sufficient to say, ‘we did not know’, if God can reply, ‘you should have known’.
IV. FURTHER REGULATIONS CENTRAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SOCIETY AND THE MAINTENANCE OF FAMILY UNITY (21.10-23).
The remainder of chapter 21 deals with what is to happen in certain cases concerning close relatives. Its stress is on the maintenance of family life in harmony, and on the honour to be shown to different members of the family.
The contents of chapter 21 also connects with 20.14 in that it deals in verses 10-14 with how to deal with women captives who are taken in marriage by Israelites, something which would be commonly happening.
The protection of family honour and harmony covers the following aspects:
All these three regulations seek to deal with the disruption of family life, the first dealing with fairness towards captives who are brought into the family, the latter two dealing with matters at the very heart of society’s welfare, inheritance rights and the maintenance of authority.
The chapter closes with a brief reference to dealing with those who behave in such a way as to deserve sentence of death (verses 22-23). This harks back to the rebellious son (verses 18-21), and to what should happen to the murderer in verses 1-9 if he was ever found.
Treatment Of Women Captives Brought Into The Family (21.10-14).
This follows on from 20.14 and gives instructions with regard to particular women captives who have been brought back to Israel. Similar situations would probably already have been met up with after earlier conflicts. Where one of these women captives was desired by an Israelite as a wife (her husband would be dead, having been slain after the siege, or in battle) he must not just callously take her and marry her. Certain consideration must first be given to the woman.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ the man has a desire for the woman and takes steps to take her for his wife, then in the parallel if he then have no delight in her he must let her go free. In ‘b’ he brings her home to his house, and she shaves her head, and pares her nails, and puts the raiment of her captivity from off her, and in the parallel she remains in his house, and bewails her father and her mother a full month, and after that he can go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be his wife (13b)
21.10-13 ‘When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands, and you carry them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you for wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails, and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month, and after that you shall go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.’
This might of course apply to any battle, not just a siege, and it is clear that it does not refer to Canaanites. In the constant conflicts this could often happen in those days. Especially with a wandering people like the Israelites such battles and such captives would have been fairly common, partly as a result of skirmishes with desert tribes. It would equally happen in the future because of warfare with belligerent neighbours. But the stress here is on the treatment of a woman captive whom an Israelite desires for himself. She must be brought to the family residence of the man who wished to marry her, then she must shave her head and pare her nails, and get rid of the clothes in which she came. After which she was to be given a month for mourning her family. (They may not have been dead, just lost for ever). Once that was over the marriage could then take place.
The shaving of her head and the paring of her nails possibly refers to the removal from her extremities (head and hand and foot) of all connections with the old life (compare Leviticus 14.14). The hair and the nails were also the parts of a woman that could grow long and enhance her beauty. Thus the cutting may have symbolised the end of her old pagan beauty and the growth of a new beauty now that she was an Israelite. Or the purpose may have been to make her ritually clean (compare Leviticus 14.8, 14; Numbers 8.7). She would now be expected to become a member of the covenant. The changing of her clothes implied something similar. She was now an Israelite and to be brought within the covenant. She must put off the clothes which distinguished her background and dress like an Israelite woman from now on. The mourning period, which was a standard period of mourning in Israel (see 34.8; Numbers 20.29), was out of consideration for her feelings. She would have had little chance to mourn while captive, but once the month was over she would be expected to forget her old life. On marriage she would now be a free Israelite woman.
21.14 ‘And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have humbled her.’
The question here is as to what is intended. On the face of it, it is the alternative to marriage. He has had a month to think it over and he is now not convinced that he wants to go ahead with marriage. His attachment has worn off and he no longer has any delight in her, which may also be explained by her reaction to the situation which has made him recognise that it bodes ill for the future. But all have been living in expectation of the marriage. She is being shamed. By sending her away he is humbling her. Thus as compensation he must not sell her, or deal with her as a slave. She must be sent away as a free woman, the position she would have held if he had married her.
Others, however, see the situation as signifying a marriage, made in haste, which has turned out to be a disaster. He had discovered that a beautiful woman did not necessarily make a good wife, especially if she had foreign tastes, and foreign habits. Furthermore she had been given little choice in the matter, and might well have been feeling angry and bitter, or have been traumatised. She might well have been behaving like a shrew. The man might have discovered that he found little delight in his marriage. This may even signify that she had refused him his conjugal rights.
It is clear that both wished the arrangement to end and in these circumstances he could ‘let her go’ presumably by divorcing her (see 24.1). She must then be allowed to go where she wished for the marriage had made her a free woman, which might well be back to her own country (compare for all this Exodus 21.8-11). He must not try to sell her as a slave, or treat her as such, because he had ‘humbled her’. This may simply refer to having put her in her difficult position, or of having ‘forced’ her to marry him, or because he has had intercourse with her on equal terms, or to the fact that divorce was necessarily usually looked on as a humbling experience for the woman. Whichever way it was he must not try to take any further advantage of her.
Just as he had been freed from slavery by the deliverance from Egypt, so he had to set her free from slavery. Having given her hope for the future it would not be just to restore her to her former condition when she was a captive. She now shared in the deliverance from Egypt.
But this latter case is only a possibility if divorce was so easily obtained. If 24.1 actually indicates that divorce was only available for serious misdemeanours it could not apply in all cases of women captors who proved a disappointment. And there is actually no mention here of a divorce or a bill of divorcement.
One lesson for us from this example is the importance of giving people who have been good to us their due. The woman had done right by him. He must do right by her.
Excursus: Should Israel Have Had Any Part In Such Slavery?
We must keep in mind that a part purpose of the Law was to control life as it was already lived, to control what already actually took place, so as to ensure fair treatment for the weaker party. The receiving of slaves and treating them as slave wives was universal practise. Conditions of the day rendered it inevitable. Both war and extreme poverty resulted in there being a certain quantity of people for whom there was little practical alternative. The only alternative was their being killed off or left to die. No nation could offer open house for all. They would never have survived. And we must not think in terms of modern slavery. Slavery was then an economic means by which the helpless and dispossessed could obtain food and shelter in return for service.
We know from the time of Abraham that Hagar was an Egyptian, and that his steward was possibly a Damascene. In Israel the permanent slave was required to enter into the covenant. They had no right to retain their own religion. They had to became an integral part of the covenant community. Thus there was little danger of their leading their masters and husbands astray. It is a fact of life that had such marriages not been allowed then particularly desirable women would simply have been ravaged. It was in order to protect against this that this law was introduced. We could say 'for the hardness off your heart Moses gave you this law' as Jesus said about the law relating to divorce.
Divorce was allowed in Israel, in so far as it was allowed, simply because, had it not been, worse things would have occurred. It was not God's will. As Jesus said it was His concession to man's weakness and the need to protect the weaker party. Without divorce a woman may have been cast off with no hope of any future marriage. If the case we have been looking at was a case of divorce, without the provision made here a slave wife might simply have been got rid of in one way or another. By having regulation it ensured right treatment. God had to take into account man's tendencies for these laws were intended to be practically applied and He knew that the people were not perfect. Impractical laws would simply have led to infamous behaviour and the suffering and death of the weak.
But if this was so, and people could so be integrated into society, why was this option not given to Canaanite women?
There was a twofold difference between Canaanite women and other women. Firstly was the fact that the Canaanites were especially corrupt with their particular debased religion. They were like a cancer which had to be totally eradicated. They had sinned so greatly that God had determined final judgment on them. They had to be 'devoted' to God (compare Joshua 7). They were under The Ban. Like all the goods in Jericho they were Yahweh’s. There were to be no exceptions. This principle was fixed in the Israelite mind without exception, without compromise. God had determined final judgment on all Canaanites. It was to be Israel's privilege to act as the judgment of God on them. If we question God’s right to so judge it may be that it is we who do not really understand either God or the final demands of righteousness.
As we know, in the event they did not follow God's command which was a large part of the reason for their continued failure before God. The cancer of the Canaanites actually destroyed the nation of Israel. When man thinks that he knows better than God it usually ends in disaster.
Secondly there is a great deal of difference between someone who has been uprooted from their environment, with the result that, finding themselves in a totally new land with nothing to remind them of the past and with no chance of returning to the old land, they can be exorcised from their old religion, as compared with someone who was constantly surrounded by their old environment, to whom every high hill, every high place, every green tree constantly kept alive in their hearts the old ideas and became a means by which they could tempt men into misbehaviour and idolatry. That scourge had to be fully eradicated. God knew the hearts of men.
Furthermore every Canaanitish woman absorbed into Israel would have been a magnet to neighbouring Canaanites inciting them to smite the Israelites so as to free their own. They would have caused constant conflict. And even worse the old behaviour had probably introduced into, and multiplied in the Canaanites, certain sexual diseases that could easily be passed on. God wanted to keep His people as free from these diseases as possible. We can compare how in our modern society free sex has resulted in a multiplicity of sexually transmitted diseases in many countries. But in those days there were no cures for such things. These are just a few reasons why Canaanite women alone were to be treated as untouchables.
End of Excursus.
Treatment of An Unloved Wife and The Right Of The Firstborn (21.15-17).
The faltering love of a man for a beautiful captive leads on to the case where a man’s love for a wife has waned. The stress is on fair treatment and harmony in the family.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note in ‘a’ that a man has two wives, one beloved and the other not beloved and both bear him children, in the parallel he must acknowledge the true firstborn even if he is borne by the unloved wife. In ‘b’ we are told that the firstborn is the son of the unloved wife, and in the parallel we are told that he must not ‘unmake’ that situation by favouring the other son as though he were the firstborn.
21.15-16 ‘If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the unloved, and if the first-born son be hers that was unloved, then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit what he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the unloved who is the firstborn.’
The thought of the wife unloved by her husband in verses 10-14 leads on this next regulation. This too applies where a wife is unloved by her husband. In this case the man is a polygamist. Similarly to Jacob he loved one wife, and the other was unloved, even possibly hated. But if they had borne him children, and the unloved one was the mother of his firstborn, he must not disinherit the firstborn for the sake of the second wife’s child. He cannot declare that the second wife’s son is ‘the firstborn’ with all the firstborn’s privileges.
Such special rights for the firstborn, and the double portion for the firstborn, are both witnessed to elsewhere in the Ancient Near East.
21.17 ‘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, the right of the firstborn is his.’
He must rather acknowledge the firstborn and give him the double portion (literally ‘a mouth or two of all that he has’ in contrast with one mouthful) which was the firstborn’s due. This is because as the firstborn he was the foundation of the man’s family, the beginning of what has become his strength. Or alternately ‘strength’ may indicate procreative power, thus we may have here the first exercise of his procreative power.
This principle of the special rights of the firstborn is known in other law codes. Esau lost it because he sold it. Reuben lost it because he sinned grievously by taking his father’s slave wife (Genesis 49.3-4). But it could only be lost by such illegalities. Kings like David often saw themselves as above this law, but what they were passing on was not a double portion but a throne, and the result was often civil war.
In the case of Abraham Sarah was his first wife. Ishmael was merely the son of a slave wife and thus was not the firstborn.
One lesson for us in this regulation is the need to deal fairly with people and not to indulge in favouritism. It is so easy to favour ‘nice’ people, and to disregard those whom we find not so nice. Here God is warning us against such behaviour. We must deal fairly and rightly with all, and not rob people of their genuine rights.
It may be asked, why should the firstborn be given a double portion? Why should everything not be equally divided among members of the family? The reason was a very good and wise one. It was to preserve his status and ensure the continuation of the family. When Israel reached the land, every Israelite family head was to receive a portion of land for the family, and we must remember that family ties were powerful in those days and that families stayed and worked together. So the family head not only had responsibility for his own immediate family but his wider family. There had necessarily to be a family head, and he was usually the firstborn. The firstborn would be the oldest and the most experienced and his being naturally appointed hopefully prevented any falling out about such a position. His authority was automatically recognised.
He would have the responsibility of looking after his mother, any unmarried daughters, and other family adherents and also the family servants. He carried on the family name and had to hold together the wider family. Thus he needed the larger portion. Then if he died without an heir his brother was to raise up a son through the firstborn's wife so that he could inherit the double portion and take over headship of the family. (Whether ‘double’ literally meant twice as much or whether it meant such a large portion as was necessary to maintain family unity is open to question). But even though the remainder of the land was passed on to other brothers it was still a part of the family land. If someone sold some of it off it could be redeemed by a kinsman, and whatever happened it returned to the family on the year of Yubile. Had the land simply been divided up on death between all members of the family, soon there would have been lots of tiny pieces of land and total disunity, until some outsider took the opportunity and bought out the lot, and no one would have had responsibility to maintain the family unity. By keeping a large part of the family land together it guaranteed the future of the whole family. If all the males in the family died daughters could inherit but if there were none then the land would pass to near relatives. But it would stay in 'the family'. Family responsibility in those days was taken seriously, was fully binding and along with a sense of tribal responsibility ensured a grouping for self-defence, was for the general benefit and provided a reasonably satisfactory judicial system. The law of primogeniture was therefore of benefit to all for the purpose of maintaining a strong family head. It was only when families ceased to work together that it became a problem, but God was talking to those who recognised the basis of it.
Rebellion Against Parental Authority (21.18-21).
Parental concern for the son as revealed in verses 15-17 now leads on to the case where a son is a rebellious troublemaker. Again the desire is to maintain the harmony of the family. In 15-17 the father was seen as behaving badly towards his son, and was forbidden by law to do so. Here the son was seen as behaving badly towards his father and mother to such an extent that they could no longer guarantee to control him.
In a patriarchal society like Israel this was tantamount to anarchy. Control in such a society was maintained by the father of the family, the father of the wider family, the father of the clan and finally the father of the tribe. Thus if the fatherhood could not control someone there was nowhere else to go.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the son is rebellious and will not respond to discipline, and in the parallel he is toned to death for his rebelliousness. In ‘b’ he is brought to the elders of the city and in the parallel the tell the elders of his crimes.
21.18-20 ‘If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though they chasten him, will not take any notice of them, then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place, and they shall say to the elders of his city, “This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.” ’
This does not refer to the normal rows that can occur in the best of families. If necessary that could have been dealt with by a severe beating. There was no limit to a father’s right to have his son beaten as long as he did not die. This refers to a son who had broken all the rules of society laid down by his parents, who was destroying the family name, and making constant problems for them in their relationships with the tribe. He had become wild and indisciplined, and broken the covenant constantly, becoming a menace to society and uncontrollable. Though they had chastened him, and such chastening could be pretty severe (Proverbs 23.13-14 suggests such a severity of beating that the parents backed away from it; compare Proverbs 13.24; 19.18), it had not worked. All efforts to control him had proved useless. He had stubbornly gone on in his rebellious way causing trouble and concern not only for his parents but for the society in which he lived. He was a menace to all.
For a father and mother to agree together to hand their son over to the authorities in those days (note that the witness of both was required) was the sign of how bad things were. They themselves would be publicly admitting their inability to control their own son. They would do it in this case for the sake of society. He could no longer be allowed to wreak havoc on everyone, and they could no longer act as his guarantee. They were left without any options.
They took him by force and brought him to the gate of the city where the judges and elders met, testifying to his behaviour before them. ‘Glutton’ and ‘drunkard’ were two abusive terms which together signified his total depravity. His greed expressed by his crimes and his totally disorderly behaviour putting everyone at risk could only be described in this way. The facts, if not already widely known, would be sought before sentence was passed. Few elders and judges would have wanted to act in such a case without good reason. Without good reason every father among them would have drawn back from it.
21.21 ‘And all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.’
To rebel in this way against parents was to rebel against God. It was to be out of control in society. (All means had been tried to persuade him to be otherwise). The punishment was therefore stoning, possibly because as the equivalent of a blasphemer the son was seen as ‘unclean’ and none would want to touch him. Compare here Exodus 21.15, 17; Leviticus 20.9. It was also a method of execution in which all could partake and thus share out among them any feelings of guilt that might arise. The whole city was called on to perform the execution (had they been in any doubt they would simply have refused). It is possible that the father and mother were not obliged to take part. It put the onus on all. It had now passed out of their hands. This serves to demonstrate that all would be aware of the justice of the sentence.
There is in fact no known case where this actually took place, which means hopefully that it was a warning that was mainly heeded. We must always remember that in the end severe sentences were at least partly intended to prevent crimes from happening. But human nature is such that it must have happened at some time.
Disposal Of Bodies Which Are Accursed (21.22-23).
The thought of the stoning of a son who was worthy of death leads on to the question of what was done with the body of such a person.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the man is executed and hung and in the parallel he is accursed of God because he has been executed and hung which is why he must not be allowed to remain there overnight. In ‘b’ his body must not remain on the tree all night, but in the parallel must be moved the same day.
21.22-23 ‘And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day, for he who is hanged is accursed of God, that you defile not your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.’
It is clear from this that the practise with executed criminals was to display the body on a tree. By this it would be made apparent to the whole society that this man had been tried, sentenced, and executed. Such a man was necessarily under a curse (compare 27.15-26). It brought shame on him and his family.
But his body must not remain on the tree all night. He must be buried the same day because he was under God’s curse and to leave a cursed body there through the night would be to defile the land. It would be to extend into the next day the necessary execution of the criminal which should all be finished with on the day of execution. The execution had as it were cancelled out the criminal behaviour. The two went together, excusing and explaining the death of the criminal so that it did not defile the land.
But to leave the body hanging exposed on the tree would be to leave it with nothing to set against it on the morrow, the death thus defiling the land (compare Numbers 35.33). And to defile the land which Yahweh had given them as an inheritance was unthinkable. There was in this an element of mercy. Sufficient unto a day is the evil thereof.
It need hardly be said that in a hot country the corpse would rapidly putrefy. This too might have been seen as part of the defilement. The hanging of criminals to public exposure was a common practise. (Compare Genesis 40.19; Numbers 25.4; Joshua 8.29; 10.26, 27; 1 Samuel 31.10; 2 Samuel 4.12; 21.8-9; Esther 2.23). It is also mentioned in the Law Code of Hammurabi.
Paul took this fact and applied it to the death of Jesus on our behalf. By hanging on a tree He willingly became a curse for us thus bearing for us the curse of sin (Galatians 3.10-13).
V. FURTHER REGULATIONS (22-25).
We have all heard sermons where the experienced preacher suddenly begins to roam far and wide, jumping swiftly from one subject to another in rapid succession, picking out information here and there, in order to present an overall picture. Sometimes there may seem to be no logic to it, but there usually is. And that is partly what Moses was doing here The regulations that follow may not seem to come in any discernible overall pattern, although Moses probably had one in his mind. But items are grouped together, or joined by key words and thoughts. Moses had a wide collection of laws from which he here extracted examples covering a wide range of circumstances so as to turn their thoughts back to Yahweh’s written Instruction. It was not intended to be comprehensive or detailed, but to convey an impression. (In the same way a similar lack of connections was found in many law codes).
While in some cases there is, and has been, a connection with the ten commandments, that is not sufficient to explain the miscellany of laws which we must now consider, although for such a connection see, for example, 19.15-21 - ‘you shall not bear false witness’; 21.1-9 - ‘you shall not murder’; 21.18-21 ‘honour your father and your mother’; 22.22-27 - ‘you shall not commit adultery’; 23.24-25; 24.7 (compare 19.14) - ‘you shall not steal’. But we note that there is no mention anywhere of the Sabbath day, something which is quite remarkable if, as some think, parts of Deuteronomy were written later. It would have been seen as an obvious gap that had to be filled. But Moses may well have classed that as priestly regulation, which he rarely touches on in the speech. But these regulations which have the particular commandments in mind are found other regulations which do not obviously fit into the pattern, although attempts have been made to do it. Such attempts do, however, require a lot from the imagination.
From this point on therefore we have a miscellany of regulations which cap what has gone before. While certain connections are unquestionably at times discoverable there seem in some cases to be no particular pattern to them, apart from the important one of consideration for others, and a need to consider covenant regulations. The essence of the message was that they were to love their neighbours, and resident aliens, as themselves (10.19 compare Leviticus 19.18, 34).
Chapter 22 Regulations In Respect of Concern for the Members of the Covenant Community and Creatures of the Land Yahweh Has Given Them.
In this chapter the regulations cited cover such things as lost livestock, avoiding cross dressing, conservation in nature, keeping buildings safe, avoiding cross connection of what Yahweh has established separately, maintaining a woman’s honour, and so on. The underlining principle behind them all was consideration and thoughtfulness, and respect for what belonged to God and to Israel under the covenant. The very wideness of the range is testimony to the wideness of the area covered by the covenant; concern for their neighbours’ possessions, concern for the relationship between man and woman, concern for the mother birds of the land, concern for the life of one’s guests, concern for natural things, concern for the women of the land, concern for a father’s position.
This can be analysed as follows:
d And shedding innocent blood to defile the land contrary to the covenant (8b).
Note that in ‘a’ a man’s possessions must be the concern of all, while in the parallel a father’s position and rights must be the concern of all. In ‘b’ men and women must maintain their differences and in the parallel those differences mean that a woman must receive necessary protection. In ‘c’ concern must be shown for birds and in the parallel concern must be shown for different things in creation. In ‘d’ concern must be shown in order to prevent accidental death, and in the parallel to avoid shedding innocent blood in the land.
Note With Regard To Women In Chapters 21-22.
Note that in each case where a woman is involved in chapters 21-22 the woman’s position and what happened to her is emphasised first, and her rights are upheld. A woman captive must be rightly dealt with (21.10-14); a despised wife is to be given her rights (21.15-17); the woman bird is to be let go (22.6-7); a woman slighted is to be defended and vindicated (22.13-19). It is not just a question of male rights. There is full concern for the woman. At the same time the right of the father to conserve the rights of his daughters and to ensure that their future is established, is established. He is her protector. But it is not correct to see the woman as just property, even though her rights are protected by her family. She is cherished within the family, and concern is shown for her protection in the context of the family, while the bride compensation payment is an evidence of her genuine worth. Women are not seen as chattels here but have dignity and rights.
End of Note.
This chapter continues the ‘thee, thou’ emphasis apart from in verse 24, where a group in a locality is in mind.
Looking After Other People’s Lost Belongings (22.1-3).
The principle behind this regulation was concern for one’s neighbour, as revealed in looking after his lost belongings with a view to restoring them, and concern for covenant property. The latter concern came out more in the original giving of these laws where the reference was to the fact that they should do this even for their ‘enemies’ (Exodus 23.4-5). There the principle of mutual guardianship of covenant property and ‘brotherhood’ was being enforced. But here Moses was seeking to establish unity ready for the days ahead. The idea was of brotherliness and helpfulness, and getting involved on behalf of others.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ the ox or sheep has gone astray, and in the parallel they have fallen down by the way. In ‘b’ a ‘brother’s’ stray beast must be properly looked after, and in the parallel this is true also of clothing and anything the ‘brother’ has lost.
22.1 ‘You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them. You shall surely bring them again to your brother.’
The straying of livestock would be a regular occurrence. Here stress was laid on a man’s responsibility towards his covenant brothers. Where straying livestock were discovered they must be taken in charge and every effort made to restore them in good health to their owner.
In Exodus 23 the ox and the ass are mentioned, being the most valuable. But the idea behind it was simply, of course, any domestic animal. This spirit of helpfulness was absent from the law of Hammurabi which dealt more with legal positions. Indeed to retain someone else’s animal without their permission could there incur the death penalty. There all was suspicion. Here it is covenant love.
22.2 ‘And if your brother be not near to you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother comes looking for it, and you shall restore it to him.’
If the owner was known to live at a distance, or was for the time being unknown, the straying livestock must be housed and fed, probably separately and not mixed with his own herds and flocks, with the aim of restoring it in good condition to its owner. Where known no doubt a message would be sent to the owner, and in any case, as soon as the owner came seeking it, it was to be restored. But there was no responsibility to travel long distances in order to restore it. That was the owner’s responsibility. After a time, if no one claimed it, it would presumably simply merge in among his own animals. Its continual upkeep and the lack of an obvious owner would justify this action.
22.3 ‘And so shall you do with his ass; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost, and you have found. You may not hide yourself.’
The sheep and cattle were mentioned first as being examples, but the same treatment in principle was to be followed with respect to any lost animal or article. They were not to deliberately let it pass unnoticed but do all that was reasonable to ensure its restoration in good condition to its owner. They were not to prevent the recovery of the articles in any way.
Being Always Ready To Give Assistance (22.4).
22.4 ‘You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide yourself from them. You shall surely help him to lift them up again.’
Where someone was seen to be in need of assistance with regard to his livestock which had had an accident while going along the road, or was overburdened, every assistance must be offered so as to help them. Compare Exodus 23.5.
Both these examples are a reminder to us that we should not just ignore the needs of our neighbours, but while not becoming a nuisance, should give a helping hand where we can.
Israel Must Avoid All That Is Unseemly (22.5-12)
Israel was to avoid all that was unseemly. That had applied with regard to what living things could be eaten (14.3-21). Now it applies to dressing transexually (verse 5), to dealings with nature (verse 6-7), and to mixing unlike with unlike (verses 10-12).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ emphasis is laid on the necessity for identification, and the same applies in the parallel. In ‘b’ a mother bird and her young must not be put together for the same treatment, and in the parallel other aspects of creation are not to be put together. In ‘c’ a parapet must be made for a flat roof, and in the parallel this is so that blood is not brought on the house.
Cross Dressing Is Forbidden (22.5).
22.5 ‘A woman shall not wear what pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.’
Cross dressing is strictly forbidden. It may well be that such behaviour was a part of certain religious rituals by which attempts were made to stir up, or even deceive the gods, but the principle was also laid down as a general one. Men should be men and women should be women, and they should be clearly distinguishable, and on principle should not wear each other’s clothing. To do so would be an abomination to God. From the beginning mankind was made male and female, the former as God’s representative on earth, the latter to assist him as an equal and bear children. And this distinction must be maintained and be clear to their children, and to the world.
This law respected the positions of both men and woman, and honoured their respective responsibilities. To mix them up was to dishonour both, and ignore God’s purpose for each. Both had authority in their own sphere within the covenant, which must not be trespassed on.
It may also possibly have in mind what purpose someone might have in such behaviour. By this means they might spy on each other’s behaviour, they might have nefarious reasons for entering into each others sanctums, they might trespass on each others right to privacy. They were blurring distinctions which were intended to be maintained, and providing themselves with a means of trespassing where they ought not to be. It made for suspicion and dishonesty in society.
‘What pertains to a man.’ This would include his weapons. Women were not to ape the man, or behave like men.
The modern attempt to blur the difference between the sexes is rebellion against God’s way of things. In His economy each have their differing function. While male and female are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3.28), stressing equality of status, this does not affect function. Each must act within their sphere. Such behaviour would also affect their children and coarsen society.
Taking Both A Bird and Its Young or Eggs Is Forbidden (22.6-7).
Here what was seemly with regard to nature is in mind. Man was able to look on nature as a provider, but was not to treat it with disregard. Rather he should receive all with gratitude and watch over the provider. Compare the attitude required with regard to trees which were also providers (20.19-20). A general principle was being taught here of preserving the sources of supply.
22.6-7 ‘If a bird’s nest chance to be before you in 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, you shall surely let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself, that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.’
There were two principles involved here. The first was the unseemliness of taking the young or the eggs of a bird for consumption, and at the same time eating the mother, who was fulfilling her God given responsibility of ‘multiplying’, thus taking the provision and eating the provider. This was seen as an offence against creation and against decency. The second was the principle of conservation. Some of what was found should be left so that it could reproduce further food in the future. To take the supplies and kill off the supplier was foolishness.
This has to do with taking eggs for food, not as an interesting hobby. The latter would have been looked on as waste. A bird could, of course, be shot down with a slingstone, and eaten, but it was not to be slain while it was fulfilling its God-given function. Thus this was very much a matter of principle. The point may also be of the impropriety of finding a bird nesting and killing the bird as well as stealing her young. It had similarities to boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (14.31).
A further thing that may be in mind could be that in normal circumstances the bird could have flown to safety. It had remained to defend its young. It was fulfilling its motherhood. Under such circumstance it was to be spared on a parallel with the fatherless and widows, as an act of compassion. It inculcated a sense of decency and fair play.
‘That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.’ That this is especially added here would seem to confirm that this was seen as an exceptionally ‘good’ thing to do, and as recognition that it was conforming to creation’s purpose. It may on the one hand simply signify the benefits that would be obtained. The ready food would make it well with them, while preserving the mother would ensure future provision though their lives. But comparison with 5.33; 6.3, 18; 12.25, 28; 19.13 suggests that it was more because they would have obeyed Yahweh’s commandment and shown compassion and thought for God’s creative purposes and for living things. Thus they would benefit within those creative purposes. The phrases may have been added to emphasise the importance of what might have seemed to some, who were harder hearted, to be an unnecessary imposition.
Some might question whether a mother bird should be of such importance. But perhaps that should draw out the further fact that this was a real test of goodness, goodness towards something that would not appreciate it and would give no reward in return. This was one of many laws which taught that consideration should be given to the defenceless, whether human, beast or bird. Such behaviour revealed what true men who obeyed God were like. They were considerate and thoughtful in all their ways, people of compassion in all circumstances, even with the weakest.
In the end this was not saying that someone who just obeyed this particular commandment would have long life. It was rather pointing out that those who were like this would live long lives, while those not considerate in all their ways would in general not. For the fact is that righteousness contributes to long life just as being dissolute does not. Righteous behaviour tends towards good health. Furthermore a man who made friends was more likely to live longer (especially in a turbulent society) than one who made enemies. These are general principles which God supports. It brings out that God is with and guides the righteous in what contributes to health and happiness.
Any Roof Must Have A Protecting Parapet To Prevent People From Falling (22.8).
Here the idea was of thoughtfulness of the dangers we can put others in by carelessness with regard to safety. The roof would be a flat one that people would entertain on. Sometimes therefore they might be a bit tipsy. Every Israelite should be concerned for the preservation of all members of the covenant by all means, and for not defiling Yahweh’s land by spilling blood. The stress is on consideration for others.
22.8 ‘When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring blood on your house, if any man fall from there.’
In all construction concern was to be shown to ensure that it was not dangerous to others, and to make it as safe as possible. They were to be concerned for each other’s welfare. This was especially so in order to prevent the spilling of blood. Thus all Israelite houses had to have a parapet. If they did not, and a man died through their negligence then innocent blood would have been spilled and the owners would bear the guilt before God. They might even be found guilty of manslaughter.
The Non-Mixing of Unlike Things (22.9-11).
Unlike things should not be put together as no one could have any idea how they would finally react (compare Leviticus 19.19). By dealing with things individually many problems could be avoided. There is probably underlying this the idea of respect for the distinctions within creation which must not be blurred. There may also be intended a subtle warning against being involved with the Canaanites, and thus mixing unlike with unlike, for they might be compared to grapes against grain (drunkenness against good bread), ass as against an ox bull or sheep (unclean against clean), or linen as opposed to wool (sophistication against tribal decency).
But the fact that we have three examples does suggest that there is an aspect of incompatibility in mind.
22.9 ‘You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole fruit be forfeited (literally ‘be made holy’), the seed which you have sown, and the increase of the vineyard.’
Practically speaking the danger of seeking to grow two things on the same piece of land was that there may not be sufficient sustenance for both, thus both might fail to grow properly. It would therefore be something best avoided. But the reference to ‘making holy’ might refer to the produce being seen as Yahweh’s and confiscated by the Sanctuary to save it from idolatrous significance, rather than to its just being naturally forfeited through its not growing properly. If this was so it may have been because such mixing was known to have religious significance among the Canaanites and/or the Egyptians, something which Moses and the people could have learned in Egypt. We know from inscriptions that Egypt had nothing against growing trees amidst grain, and that this was practised in sacred gardens. It may therefore have had an idolatrous taint.
It is, however, quite possible that grain and fruit that did not become edible was, with wry humour, spoken of as being ‘made holy’, that is, not available for eating, which would then support the first idea.
In the same way Leviticus 19.19 forbids the sowing of two types of seed in a field, presumably together. The folly of this would be that they choked each other and might grow at different rates. Thus harvesting problems would be caused.
But behind it all would seem to be the principle that what was compatible must go with what was compatible, that there be no dissension in creation.
22.10 ‘You shall not plough with an ox and an ass together.’
This may well have been because one was ‘clean’, and the other was not. To do this would thus be seeming to have a disregard for holiness. Alternately it may have been because of the incompatibility between the two and out of consideration for both. The danger with ploughing with two such different animals in the yoke could be that neither cooperated and that both were uneasy, thus making ploughing difficult. The Arabs did, however, in fact put ox and ass together in the yoke.
On the other hand the aim may have been to prevent a mutual relationship being built up between such unlike animals as they worked together, causing unnecessary distress. Such bonds between disparate animals do occur and would cause great distress on separation. Any way it is looked at the principle appears to have the animals’ welfare in mind.
Compare how Leviticus 19.19 forbids bringing two types of animal together for the purpose of breeding. This would indeed produce sterile offspring. But the stress is on the incompatability. It would be unseemly.
22.11 ‘You shall not wear a mixed fabric, wool and linen together.’
The form of the word for ‘mixed fabric’ demonstrates that it was not native Hebrew but was borrowed from another language and was probably an Egyptian loan word. This may suggest that it had a special type of religious implication. If so such a mixing of cloth might then have had connections with idolatry, the occult and magic and constantly have reminded those who wore it of such idolatry or magic, and may even have made them feel entrapped by such things.
Or it may be that we should remember that linen was what was worn by the priests. It might thus have been seen as having an aura of holiness. It may have been felt that to mix this with common wool was to degrade linen’s significance. Others have suggested that it was what prostitutes wore.
But the practical problem with mixing two types of such distinctive cloth was firstly that they might not weave well together, each having different strengths, and secondly that when washed each might react differently thus spoiling the garment (compare the new patch and old garment mentioned by Jesus (Mark 2.21)). That may indeed have been the sole reason for the restriction. Compare again Leviticus 19.19.
But the threefold repetition of examples would suggest that below all the other reasons lay the fact of incompatibility, and the importance of maintaining distinctions, whether for religious, ethical or practical reasons. And it may be that this principle was then to be extended towards ways of living. How shall two walk together except they be agreed?
A Fringe On The Robe (22.12).
In Numbers 15.37-41 special tassels were to be a distinctive mark of the Israelite, and were to remind him of Yahweh’s commandments. Here that requirement is simply demanded without explanation. In Numbers it was part of the nation’s dedication to Yahweh.
22.12 ‘You shall make yourself tassels on the four borders of your robe with which you cover yourself.’
One purpose of the tassels was that the Israelite should look at them and remember all the commandments of Yahweh and do them (Numbers 15.37-41). Just as they could not do there own will with regard to these tassels, so neither could they do their own will with respect to the covenant. The robe would be worn by day and serve as a blanket by night. Thus the tassels would remind them constantly of Yahweh’s covenant by day and by night. They would also be a means by which Israelites could be identified by their clothing, and would thus recognise fellow Israelites abroad or in battle, and provide a quiet means of witness to outsiders. They were the badge of the members of the covenant. They were to be attached by a dark blue thread which made them distinctive, a sign of heaven (Numbers 15.38).
But this may include the idea that the tassels would hold the robe down and prevent a man’s nakedness being revealed. The Hebrew is literally ‘with which covering you cover yourself’, emphasising the covering aspect of the garment.
Various Sexual Crimes (22.13-30).
The Protection Of A Woman’s Reputation (22.13-21).
The rather sad message behind this regulation was that all parents should retain proof of their daughter’s virginity, because some men were so evil that they might use her supposed lack of virginity on marriage in order to get rid of her without losing her dowry. It brings out the depths of man’s sinfulness. It probably indicates that divorce was not easy, which should be remembered when considering 24.4, for it probably indicates that any divorce required solid reasons.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ an evil name is brought on the woman, and in the parallel she is therefore to be put to death. In ‘b’ his charge is that he did not find in here the tokens of virginity, and in the parallel this is the reason for her sentence. In ‘c’ the parents prove her innocence with the tokens of virginity and charge the man with laying shameful charges, and in the parallel he is punished accordingly.
22.13-14 ‘If any man take a wife, and go in to her, and hate her, and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name on her, and say, “I took this woman, and when I came near to her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,” ’
We must assume that cases like this had occurred, so that Moses felt it necessary to issue a warning. Indeed it sounds like the citing of such a case. The idea was that the man had married the young woman and had found her unsatisfactory. Thus in order to get rid of her and keep her dowry he had accused her of not having been a virgin when he married her. That was to say, in other words, that she had previously committed fornication. That way she would be put to death and he would be free of her without losing face and without losing her dowry.
Note the wording which is disparaging to the man. He took her as his wife, he went in to her, he hated her, he laid a shameful charge against her, he brought an evil name on her. No reason is given for his change of heart so that the assumption is that it was just his own personal attitude that was at fault. He was unwilling to accept the consequences of his own actions, and sought for an evil way out. Note also how all is built around ‘he hated her’. He began with actions of love (took her as his wife and went in to her), and ended with disgraceful behaviour (he laid a shameful charge against her, and brought an evil name on her), and all because he had taken an aversion to her.
‘The tokens of her virginity (bethulim).’ This is usually taken to mean the blood stained garments or sheet which resulted from her hymen breaking on her first night of intercourse. It would appear that it was expected of all parents that they would have kept these after the marriage, so that if necessary they could produce them to prove their daughter’s virginity at that time. It is probable that all parents did so. (The same custom was known among some Arab tribes). While in some cases the hymen could in fact have been broken earlier as a result of vigorous activity or an accident, it would not usually be the case with a well brought up young woman.
It has, however, been suggested that what is referred to here are rather tokens which were proof that she was having periods (menstruating) right up to the time of the wedding, and had thus not been pregnant. ‘Bethulah’ at this time meant a young woman of marriageable age whether married or not (see Joel 1.8). Thus the ‘bethulim’ could indicate the proofs of young womanhood and faithfulness up to the time of the wedding. (Young women were married much younger in those days). This is supported by the later suggestion that there might be some argument about the position, while both parties would already know whether the ‘honeymoon’ sheet was bloodstained.
22.15-17 ‘Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city in the gate, and the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, and he hates her, and, lo, he has laid shameful charges, saying, I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity, and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.” And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.’
Then when an accusation was made against their daughter they could produce what they claimed to be the evidence of her virginity to the elders who were acting as judges at the city gates. It appears that these would normally be accepted as proof of the accuracy of their statement, as the parents represented two witnesses to the fact that the evidence truly related to their daughter at the important time. It should be noted that it is their testimony that is accepted. The court expected the parents to have such proof. Producing a bloodstained garment would not be too difficult. It was their testimony, and the fact that they would be known to have preserved it, that gave it added significance.
In a case like this it was essential that the wife's parents could prove that their daughter had been a virgin, not only to save her life and uphold the family honour, but in order that their daughter’s future should not be wrecked, and so that any child born could not be denied as the rightful heir. No one would be able to say that the child was illegitimate, for the wife had been demonstrated to be a virgin on her wedding night, (and would have been carefully observed afterwards). Such rights of inheritance were seen as of huge importance.
22.18-19 ‘And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel, and she shall be his wife. He may not put her away all his days.’
The accuser would then be taken and ‘chastised’. This probably indicated a severe beating depending on who the man was. He was also fined a hundred shekels of silver, the price of a number of slaves, which indicated the value put on a wife. This would be given to the father of the young woman as compensation for the slur on the family name, and perhaps to be held to safeguard her future. The woman would also then remain his permanent wife, because he would no longer have a right to divorce her. That right would have been lost. She would be secure from any further charges. Presumably her family would also keep an eye on her from then on. Indeed she may no longer have lived with him, but the rights of inheritance for any children she might have would have been secured.
The punishment was because he had ‘brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel’. Israel were proud of the virginity of their young women. They were a bedrock of society. To bring an evil name on one was to bring an evil name on Israel, unless it were true.
Under the law of witnesses (19.19) we might have expected him to be put to death. But the decision here probably took into account that that would not be helpful to the injured woman. Instead he was to be sentenced to maintain her without any further accusation for life.
22.20-21 ‘But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring the young woman out to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel, to play the infamous woman in her father’s house. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.’
However, if no tokens of virginity could be produced the woman would be presumed guilty. Had they existed they would have been preserved. She was then to be taken to the door of her father’s house and stoned to death. This was because the parents had failed, possibly innocently, to ensure that their daughter was a virgin when they had arranged for her marriage, although professing that she was. This would incidentally support the fact that the tokens of her virginity were proof of menstruation up to marriage, as both parties would already have known whether no blood had been found on the ‘honeymoon’ sheets, and would have come to an arrangement accordingly. She would be stoned because she had ‘wrought folly in Israel’, a technical term for particularly obnoxious behaviour which was grievous to Yahweh (compare Genesis 34.7), by acting like a prostitute while living with her family.
All this would, of course, only apply if at marriage the claim had been made that she was an intact virgin. If not a certificate may well have been obtained acknowledging that that fact was known.
One lesson for us from this is the importance laid on virginity at marriage. This was God’s purpose for His people.
Dealing With Sexual Misbehaviour (22.22-30).
Various aspect of sexual misbehaviour are dealt with in this passage with the most heinous at the beginning and the end.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ a man is found lying with a married woman, and in the parallel a man takes his father’s wife, both liable to the death sentence. In ‘b’ the case of a damsel betrothed who lies with a man is dealt with and the remedy stated and in the parallel the case of a damsel not betrothed who lies with a man is dealt with and the remedy stated. In ‘c’ the case of a damsel betrothed who is forced to lie with a man is dealt with, and the man is to be put to death, and in the parallel she is declared innocent and is not to be put to death.
The Penalty For Adultery (22.22-24).
The accusation of the young woman, which was connected with possible adultery, now led on to an overall condemnation of adultery.
22.22 ‘If a man be found lying with a woman who is married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So shall you put away the evil from Israel.’
Where a man, and a married woman who was someone else’s wife, were found having intercourse both were to be put to death. By this act they had broken her unity with her husband (Genesis 2.24). They had blasted apart a family. This was in order to put away evil in Israel. Their act was seen as a stain on, and a disruption, the whole community. The man was slain as a corrupter, the woman as one who was misusing her God-given responsibility to be a bearer of legitimate children in order to maintain the family and its inheritance.
Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian law required a similar penalty, although in certain circumstances it could be ameliorated.
22.23-24 ‘If there be a young woman who is a woman of marriageable age (or virgin) betrothed to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you (ye) shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman, because she did not cry out, being in the city, and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour’s wife. So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.’
A woman who was betrothed who committed adultery was to be treated in the same way as a wife, but only if it had happened in the city and she had not cried out. Houses were built so close together that the likelihood of her not being heard was very small. Note that there is no suggestion of force having been used in contrast with the next case. The man should be stoned because he had humbled his neighbour’s wife, the woman because she was deemed to have consented.
Note here that ‘the damsel who is a bethulah betrothed to a husband’ is also called ‘his neighbour’s wife’. She was a young woman of marriageable age who was betrothed (contracted to her future husband with the marriage price having been paid). She may or may not have been strictly a virgin. Intercourse within a betrothal was acceptable. But she had betrayed her trust.
Dealing With The Rape of a Betrothed Woman (22.25-27).
22.25-27 ‘But if the man find the young woman who is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die, but to the young woman you shall do nothing. There is in the young woman no sin worthy of death. For as when a man rises against his neighbour, and murders him, even so is this matter, for he found her in the field, the betrothed young woman cried out, and there was none to save her.’
However, where the intercourse with the betrothed woman took place in the open country it was to be accepted that the man had forced her and that the woman would have cried out, but that no one heard. Only the man was then to be put to death. The woman was free from guilt. It was a similar case to murder. The guilty party would be seen as having ensured that he did it where no one would know, while she would be seen as the unwilling victim. Thus the woman was considered as having not been able to do anything about it, and therefore as innocent.
A Man Must Marry Permanently A Virgin Whom He Has Intercourse With (22.28-19)
22.28-29 ‘If a man find a young woman who is a of marriageable age, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her. He may not put her away all his days.’
Compare here Exodus 22.16-17. Where a young unmarried woman was of marriageable age and could therefore be presumed to be a virgin (she was a bethulah) and a man forced on her sexual intercourse, (the impression given is of undue pressure, although no doubt it would apply anyway), then the man must pay compensation to her family of fifty shekels of silver which in Exodus 22.16 is described as a dowry, and must marry her permanently with no right of divorce. It should be noted that this was both to protect the good name of her family, and to see to the young woman’s interests. The penalty was against the man. The woman would not be bound to marry him if she did not wish to do so in which case he would still have to pay the compensation (Exodus 22.17). But society was such in those days that it was usually to her benefit to marry him.
It may seem strange to some that a woman should ever be married to the man who raped her. But we must understand the meaning of ‘lay hold of her and lay with her’. He may have been someone the woman knew well and was not necessarily averse to. His very action (in a society where everyone knew everyone else) demonstrated his deep feelings for her. There may therefore have been a willingness and readiness on her part. Indeed she may have encouraged it. Love did not necessarily play much part in the beginnings of most marriages in those days, and a young woman was expected to follow the directions and desires of her parents, even to the most unsuitable of suitors. Thus the young woman in these verses may actually have been luckier than most in marrying a man who really loved her. He would not necessarily brutalise her. And women did not then have the same expectations as today nor the same sense of their ‘rights’. They were trained to be submissive. Thus the prospect might not have appalled them as it appals us today. And there was always the opt out.
This example is a reminder to us that when a man and woman have intercourse God looks on it as putting them in a married state. They have been joined together as one flesh (compare 1 Corinthian 6.16). They are one. Any subsequent sex with anyone else is therefore adultery.
A Son Must Not Make Love To His Father’s Wife (22.30)
22.30 ‘A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt.’
The short section on sexual misdemeanour ends with the worse possible case, that of a man taking his father’s wife, (probably not to be seen as his own mother), and having intercourse with her. This would uncover his own father’s naked relationship, and would be a gross insult to the father and a great sin against him, betraying family honour and trust, and destroying family relationships. It might also be seen as an attempt to usurp his father’s place (the father may have been dead). It put the son under a curse (27.20).
Chapter 23 Regulation Concerning Those Whom Yahweh Makes Welcome and Unwelcome (1-18): Regulations Concerning Honest Dealings (19-25).
Moses now came to the question as to whom in the future were to be welcome to become true Israelites with full rights in the community and who would not, and them went on to deal with the question of honest dealings.
Exclusion From And Entry Into The Assembly Of Yahweh (23.1-8).
Having dealt with different aspects of concern for one another within the covenant details were now given of those who for various reasons were welcome or unwelcome within the full covenant. First Moses considered those who were seen as restricted from becoming full citizens by being enrolled in the assembly of Yahweh. This did not exclude them from a covenant relationship with Yahweh, for they could still worship and pray and offer sacrifices (see Numbers 15.14-16, 26 compare Leviticus 16.29; 17.8; 22.18). But they could not be seen as full members.
Behind this lies the fact that it was considered to be a great privilege to be a member of the assembly of Yahweh. The 'congregation of Yahweh' were regarded as 'holy, every one of them' (Numbers 16.3). They were seen as 'set apart' as Yahweh's. They were 'a holy nation, a kingdom of priests' (Exodus 19.6). Theirs was a unique privilege and they had to be seen to be a holy nation, at least outwardly. Even then those who were under twenty years of age were not seen as full members of the congregation. See Numbers 1.18; 26.2; Joshua 22.12; Judges 20.1 but compare 2 Chronicles 31.16, 18 where they were in some way accepted as connected with the congregation if they were over three years of age. In its pure form the congregation also probably excluded women as well for they could not be circumcised. See Numbers 1.2-3, 18 where 'the congregation' appears to refer to the men only. See also Joshua 22.12; Judges 20.1; 21.5; Ezra 2.64. But again see 2 Chronicles 31.16, 18.
Certainly their women’s later position is blatantly brought out in that in Herod’s temple women were excluded from 'the court of Israel'. On the other hand they did have a special position of their own. They had the Court of the Women and were not limited to the court of the Gentiles.
So membership in the assembly of Yahweh was not granted easily to those not born within the covenant. It should be noted that the exemptions now mentioned evidence further that we are dealing with words of Moses. The exemptions were probably intended to cover all known likely applicants, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites and Egyptians, all described previously in the book as having current contact with Israel. It is quite likely that approaches were being made at this time by Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites who wanted to join up with Israel. This indicates the early date of this passage. The favourable view of Edom also indicates an early date. In contrast the prophets later castigated Edom which was then seen as a mortal enemy. Canaanites are excluded because the purpose is that they will not be alive to become members. Any others are ignored. They have not come within Israel’s purview. The non-mention of the class of other resident aliens and foreigners generally, often mentioned elsewhere, was probably an indication that they might be accepted on individual terms in terms of Exodus 12.48-49. They could never present the threat that neighbours could (see what follows).
The first part of the chapter deals with the purity of the assembly, and who was and who was not to be welcomed (1-8), the purity of the military camp and behaviour that was not welcomed (9-14), the welcoming of an escaped slave (15-16 - probably because Israel themselves had been escaped slaves from Egypt), and in contrast the non-welcome of prostitutes and practising homosexuals (17-18). In each case the question is of who can be Yahweh’s chosen ones. This is then followed by covenant matters such as not taking from the poor interest on loans (19-20), not taking from God was has been avowed to Him (21-23), and not taking from their neighbours what belongs to them. There was the presumption in the first case that the poor would have loans available to them, in the second that freewill offerings would be available for others to partake of, and in the third of the availability to all of ready meals from growing grapes and grain (24-25). The three are thus closely connected by the thought of honesty and provision.
The chapter uses ‘thou, thee’ throughout apart from verse 4a where the thought is of them as a multitude of people.
Regulations Concerning Who Can Enter the Assembly of Yahweh (23.1-9)
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ one who has been emasculated cannot enter the assembly of Yahweh, but in the parallel an Edomite or Egyptian of the third generation can enter he assembly of Yahweh. In ‘b’ a foreigner of doubtful background shall not enter the assembly of Yahweh, but in the parallel Edom and Egypt are not to be looked on as foreigners of doubtful background. In ‘c’ the Ammonite and Moabite cannot enter the assembly of Yahweh ‘for ever’, and in the parallel they are seen as so untrustworthy that no treaties must be made with them ‘for ever’. In ‘d’ they hired Balaam against Israel, and in the parallel Yahweh did not listen to Balaam.
The Mutilated Cannot Enter the Assembly of Yahweh (23.1).
As entry into the land became nearer it was important to guard against the practises of the land. There might be a temptation for Israelites to mutilate themselves as they learned what the Canaanite cult prostitutes had done, or were still doing, in unoccupied territory. Let them therefore recognise that to do that would be for them to ever disqualify them from being in the assembly of Israel. There would be no way back for they would be permanently blemished. For no one religiously mutilated could enter the assembly of Yahweh.
23.1 ‘He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
This in a curious way connects back to 22.30 which spoke of ‘uncovering his father’s skirt’. Here a man’s private parts were ‘uncovered’. This probably indicates deliberate mutilation, and is possibly intended to contemptuously dismiss the whole of Canaan as religious rejects, with the mutilated person seen as representing Canaanite religion and its adherents. These descriptions could well have been basically representing Canaanite religious rites which were an abomination to Yahweh and were seen as representative of Canaanite religion, which included the castration of male religious prostitutes. There would thus be total exclusion for Canaanites from the assembly of Israel, consonant with the fact that they were to be destroyed. (Even then Rahab was welcomed in - Joshua 6.25. God’s grace always has its exceptions).
But as mentioned above any copycat tactics by Israelites would have the same effect for them as well. Such practises would exclude anyone from the assembly of Yahweh. They were making themselves into Canaanites.
Those mentioned here would necessarily be prevented from circumcision because of their previous past ritual act which was also thus seen as excluding them for ever. In the case of the Canaanites it was because they bore on them the permanent mark of some other deity. In the case of the Israelite it might indicate excessive but mistaken religious fervour. But that would not excuse them. Yahweh demanded wholesomeness and perfection, not mutilation (compare 14.1). To so mutilate themselves would exclude them from the assembly. We do not know whether exclusion of eunuchs was intended here, or not. Eunuchs would later be perfectly acceptable (Isaiah 56.3-4). It probably does not refer to men mutilated by accident.
There is no mention of the exclusion of their descendants because speaking literally they would be unable to father children. But the intention was also in the case of the Canaanites that there would be no descendants. Any descendants of non-Canaanites to whom this referred would not, however, themselves necessarily be mutilated.
Some, however, see the significance of this as referring to the non-functioning of a man’s lifegiving potential. Thus the point would be that the man could no longer ‘go forth and multiply’. He was therefore seen as blemished and not ‘fitted’ to be a part of the assembly of Israel, the holy people, although it would not necessarily prevent him from being within the covenant and able to worship Yahweh. But he would not be able to be an acting priest. It was in that view a ritual matter rather than a personal one indicating the perfection of Yahweh as the source of life.
The ‘assembly of Yahweh’ was Israel as gathered at the central Sanctuary with the main emphasis on the adult males (compare 4.10; 5.22; 9.10; 10.4; 18.16). These basically constituted ‘Israel’ with their households coming under their ‘umbrella’. It would exclude resident aliens who had not fully submitted to the covenant (those who had submitted would be seen as full members - compare the principle in Exodus 12.48). To enter into the assembly of Yahweh indicated obtaining full, unrestricted membership, with all its rights and privileges.
23.2 ‘A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
It is an open question what was meant by ‘a bastard’ (mamzer). The English translation give the impression of clarity but not the Hebrew (to us). The word is only used twice in the Old Testament and in its other use refers to ‘a mongrel people’ dwelling in Ashdod having replaced the true people (Zechariah 9.6). It could therefore mean a ‘foreigner’ but in a contemptuous sense, a foreigner of doubtful background. Notice how in the analysis it contrasts with Edomites and Egyptians, the former ‘brothers’ and the latter those who welcomed them as resident aliens.
It has been seen as referring to the product of an incestuous relationship (compare 22.30) or the product of a forbidden marriage (compare 7.3) or a half-breed, especially if connected with those otherwise forbidden (for racism was otherwise unknown), or the children of cult prostitutes (by relating mamzer to manzer which means ‘consecrated’). Theoretically at least a bastard as we know it could rarely be born in Israel for adulterers were put to death, and those who engaged in sex outside marriage were compulsorily married. Thus true bastards would be rare. It is not possible for us to be certain who was really in mind.
The exclusion ‘to the tenth generation’ puts them on a parallel with Ammonites and Moabites and excludes their descendants from full membership in Israel in the foreseeable future. The phrase could indicate ‘many generations’ as something thrust into the distant future, or it may mean ‘for ever’ (verse 3).
23.3-5 ‘An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Yahweh for ever, because they did not meet you (ye) with bread and with water in the way, when you (ye) came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you (thee) Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you (thee). Nevertheless Yahweh your God would not listen to Balaam, but Yahweh your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because Yahweh your God loves you.’
The exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites was on the basis of their unsuitability as evidenced by their actions. Ammonites were included with Moabites because they were brother nations and often acted as one (compare Judges 3.12-13; 11.12-28 especially 17, 18, 25). What one did the other did. Thus they were lumped together as hiring Balaam, even though in Numbers no mention is made of the Ammonites. But they had continually demonstrated their enmity towards Israel by their attitude. They had refused hospitality to a refugee nation who were related to them, in the time of need, they had hired a false prophet against them, and they had sought for them to be cursed. They were thus untrustworthy. Even from a practical point of view they were not the kind of people that should be introduced into the inner counsels of Israel.
The reasons mentioned must not be minimised. To refuse hospitality was repugnant in the Ancient Near East. It was to brand someone as an enemy or an outcast. This thus demonstrated deep enmity. The hiring of Balaam was an even deeper display of enmity. The purpose had been to put Israel under a permanent curse. They wanted to be rid of them for ever. It was only due to Yahweh’s love for Israel that that curse was turned into a blessing.
The idea is that this demonstrated that they were so untrustworthy that while individuals might be allowed within the covenant and to worship Yahweh, none could ever in the foreseeable future become full members of the assembly. For they would never be able to show themselves a