This section of the Book of Deuteronomy closes off the central Deuteronomic covenant. Deuteronomy contains the central Law given to Moses as spoken by Him in popular form prior to entry into the land. The law of Deuteronomy is the people's Law spoken with them in mind at this crucial stage of their history. It is provided in the form of the Deuteronomic covenant.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- I & II CHRONICLES --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH---ESTHER---PSALMS 1-73--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
By Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons-London) DD
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 as sufficiently detached from the attitude of their nations. Part of their disqualification might also arise from the fact that they were seen as descended from an incestuous union of Lot with his daughters (Genesis 19.30-38), so that they were seen as permanently blemished. The contrast with Edom as ‘your brother’ may hint at this. It should, however, be noted that their womenfolk could be absorbed into Israel on marriage to an Israelite, as witness Ruth the ancestress of David (Ruth 4.21-22) whose children were welcomed into the assembly of Israel.
‘Even to the tenth generation -- for ever.’ ‘Ten’ regularly means ‘many’ (compare Genesis 31.7). Thus this may mean for the foreseeable future until some great event occurs that makes it possible, possibly the coming of Shiloh? - see Genesis 49.10. ‘For ever’ means a similar thing, ‘unto the ages’, that is into the distant future. Moab and Ammon were clearly seen as a deceitful and wild people and totally untrustworthy.
23.6 ‘You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days for ever.’
This is not as harsh as it sounds. Its meaning is that they are not to establish peace treaties with either nation. To ‘seek their peace and prosperity’ was a traditional way by which entering into such treaties was described. The ban was signifying that there was something so unstable in the characters of the nations that they were never to be trusted in a treaty. Their curse returned on their own heads. This would confirm that the problem therefore lay in their basic attitude.
23.7 ‘You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.’
In contrast were the Edomites and the Egyptians, the former because they were a genuine brother nation, the latter because in contrast with the Moabites and the Ammonites they had welcomed Israel to live among them at their time of need. Thus whenever they wished to enter the assembly of Israel this was possible after completing a probationary period which established their genuineness.
‘Shall not abhor.’ Abhorrence had in mind what was contrary to God. It was the opposite of ‘covenant love’. They were not to be looked on as of such a nature that they were utterly unable to be received by Yahweh. Later this position would be partly reversed in the case of Edom because they would criminally take advantage of Judah’s misfortunes (Obadiah; Amos 1.11-12; Ezekiel 35.5; 2 Chronicles 28.17; Psalm 137.7). They took possession of lands in the south. It rebounded on them, for in the end these were joined by refugees from the destruction of Edom and were later (under John Hyrcanus) actually forced then to be circumcised and become Jews at the point of the sword, being gradually absorbed into God’s people.
The prophets would later prophesy that one day large numbers of Egyptians would turn to Yahweh (Isaiah 19.18-25; 45.14), something which became a reality through the preaching of the early church so that Alexandria became a major centre of Christianity in its early days.
23.8 ‘The children of the third generation who are born to them shall enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
Thus when it came to Edomites and Egyptians the father and his son would be probationers, but the grandson would receive welcome as a full member, so the wait would not be too long. It may be asked why they had to be put on probation, whereas other resident aliens could be welcomed almost immediately. The answer lies in the circumstances. Being neighbours they could seek to ‘convert’ in large numbers, and by this means plant spies in the assembly in readiness for a coup. This was hopefully to be prevented by the period of probation during which the genuineness of their motives could be proved. And while the son might follow his father in such a plan, the grandson, brought up as an Israelite, would see himself as such.
Behind these stipulations lies an important lesson. It is that while we must forgive people, and always welcome them, we must ever be sensibly aware of their frailties. The Christian ‘forgets’ in that he never again holds a repented of sin against someone, but he is still wise enough to recognise other people’s basic failings.
Keeping The Military Camp Ritually Clean (23.9-14).
Having established the purity of the assembly of Israel Moses now moved on to the question of the purity of the military camp of Israel. If they desired Yahweh to be with them in their midst they must preserve the purity of the camp.
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ they must keep themselves from every evil thing when in their camp, and in the parallel this is because Yahweh walks in the camp. In ‘b’ we have described how to treat uncleanness caused by emissions, and in the parallel how to deal with other emissions.
23.9 ‘When you (thou) go forth in camp against your enemies, then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing.’
When proceeding against the enemy it was necessary to keep ritually clean (compare 1 Samuel 21.4-5). The examples given are directly relevant to the camp but the implication is that they should avoid all uncleanness in every way. The general principle having been stated, some of the detail is then spelled out.
23.10-11 ‘If there is among you any man, who is not clean by reason of that which chances him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp, but it shall be, when evening comes on, he shall bathe himself in water; and when the sun is down, he shall come within the camp.’
What ‘chances a man by night’ is a euphemism for wet dreams and other discharges (compare Leviticus 15.16). This rendered a man ‘unclean’ until the evening. The washing with water was preparatory to the period of waiting which would result in his becoming clean. It was not the water that cleansed but the waiting outside the camp. The water probably removed his earthiness so that he could meet with Yahweh in his period of waiting. Yahweh would be there, for He was not excluded from outside the camp, except in His symbolised presence. This is a military camp. When in the ‘camp of Israel’ (that of the whole people, not the military camp) he would wait within his tent, but then he was not sharing it in such close vicinity with others. Soldiers would often be huddled together. It may suggest that the military camp must be kept especially holy.
These discharges might include the soldier ‘wetting himself’ or even ‘disgracing himself’, whether because he was frightened, or simply out of laziness. Either way he would be given time to think about the matter by his exclusion from the camp. He would be no longer welcome until he was ‘clean’. The following verses would be an indication of what they were really expected to do in such circumstances.
23.12-13 ‘You shall have a place also outside the camp, to which you shall go forth abroad, and you shall have a shovel (or peg) among your weapons, and it shall be, when you sit down abroad, you shall dig with it, and shall turn back and cover what comes from you.’
This might suggest that there was a camp for the soldiers, the official camp, within a wider camp which would include the latrines, both of which would be under guard, but the latter of which would be seen as ‘outside the camp’. Soldiers on active service would not want to be wandering alone away from the camp. The point, however, here is that the soldier who wished to relieve himself should leave the main camp to go to the latrine area, either with a shovel or peg which each soldier probably carried in his pack, or with a shovel kept in a prominent place for general use, dig a hole, relieve himself, and then cover it over. This would keep the main camp holy and would be of great hygienic benefit. It would also emphasise the need to avoid lewd or disgusting behaviour.
23.14 ‘For Yahweh your God walks (or ‘marches’) in the midst of your camp, to deliver you, and to give up your enemies before you; therefore shall your camp be holy, that he may not see an unclean thing in you, and turn away from you.’
This was necessary because Yahweh their God walked in the midst of their camp. Yahweh was with them (possibly, but not necessarily, indicated by the presence of the Ark). It is an open question whether the Ark was regularly taken into battle. Compare for this Numbers 10.35-36, but there the tabernacle was being taken down; Judges 20.27, where it was in the main camp of Israel in a civil war where Yahweh’s law was being defended; 1 Samuel 4.3-9, but that arose from special circumstances of defeat. It is thus a disputed question. But unquestionably He was seen as ‘on the march’ with them and as there to deliver them from all their enemies, (compare the same word for ‘march, go before, walk’ in Exodus 23.23; 33.14; Leviticus 26.12). Thus whenever a soldier relieved himself it reminded Him that Yahweh was with them in the camp, for that was why the camp had to be kept holy. No ‘nakedness of a thing’ must be found in it, nothing connected with the waste products of the private parts. If they disregarded this demand for the maintenance of the holiness of the camp then Yahweh would turn away from them and they would not be victorious.
There is unquestionably here the requirement that the people of God be clean and hygienic in their habits, even though the reason for it is a religious one.
Other Aspects Of Attitude and Behaviour (23.15-25).
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ a slave who escapes from a foreign master (and is now in someone else’s land) must be welcomed. He may live where he chooses among them and must not be oppressed. In the parallel someone who is in someone else’s field may partake of what is in it as long as he only takes what is necessary at the time in order to satisfy his hunger (he must thus not be disapproved of). And this was based on the fact of Yahweh’s ownership of the land, and the fact that He was the master and Israel His ‘slaves’. Compare Isaiah 1.3). It was also based on the fact that they had been slaves to a cruel foreign master in Egypt and must therefore now show compassion (compare 24.22). In ‘b’ ‘holy ones’ in terms of prostitutes both male and female are forbidden in Israel, and in the parallel men and women shall be truly holy by observing their vows. In ‘c’ the wages of male and female prostitutes are not to be accepted for a vow, and in the parallel a truly made vow must be performed in timely fashion. In ‘d’ it is forbidden to lend on interest to a brother, but in the parallel such lending to foreigners is allowed.
Escaped Slaves Shall Not Be Forced To Return To Their Masters (23.15-16).
This would apparently refer to slaves who escaped from another country. The point was almost certainly that Israel themselves were in a sense escaped slaves and should therefore treat other escaped slaves well and not return them to their place of origin. Rather they must be welcomed. This would forbid extradition clauses which were a feature of some treaties.
23.15-16 ‘You shall not deliver to his master a slave who is escaped from his master to you, he shall dwell with you, in the midst of you, in the place which he shall choose within one of your gates, where it pleases him best. You shall not oppress him.’
An escaped slave who came among them must be free to choose where he would live. This fact is emphasised. He was to be a totally free man. Note the threefold emphasis so common in Deuteronomy, ‘in the midst of you (as one of you), in the place which he shall choose within your gates, where it pleases him best.’ He would probably also be welcome into the assembly of Israel if he was willing to commit himself to the covenant.
‘In the place which he shall choose.’ It can hardly be a coincidence that this phrase was used. Thus the freedom of the escaped slave is compared with the freedom of Yahweh to choose His own place. He was under Yahweh’s special care.
Both Male And Female Prostitution Forbidden In Israel (23.17).
In contrast with the welcome given to the escaped slave are the unwelcome Israelite male and female prostitutes.
23.17 ‘There shall be no cult prostitute (holy one) of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult sodomite (holy one) of the sons of Israel.’
Prostitution was to be totally forbidden in Israel among their own people. Neither male nor female native cult prostitutes were to be allowed, nor indeed any prostitutes. There must be no aping the ways of foreign nations. The Canaanites had a multiplicity of cult prostitutes, (they are mentioned in Ugaritic texts of temple personnel) as did other nations. The danger of copycat prostitution may well be in mind
Their Unclean Money Not To Be Accepted in the House of God (23.18).
The comparison here was of not allowing anything unclean in the place where Yahweh dwelt (compare 10-13).
23.18 ‘You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute, or the wages of a dog, into the house of Yahweh your God for any vow, for even both these are an abomination to Yahweh your God.’
Any attempt to bring money into the Sanctuary which was earned by prostitution (a word which more indicates general prostitution), in respect of a vow, was to be absolutely rejected. The ‘dog’ may well signify a male prostitute (such a use is known in external literature). Both male and female prostitutes were an abomination to Yahweh. This would presumably in context refer to foreign prostitutes as Israelite prostitutes have just been forbidden, although it may simply be underlining the actual ban. To introduce their hire would be to condone their profession, while they were actually an abomination to Yahweh.
However, the reference to a dog may have a real dog in mind, possibly a sheep dog or one used for security purposes rather than the semi-wild dogs that hung around outside the camp acting as scavengers. It would then indicate that to introduce a dog’s earnings was all one with introducing a dog (which was a ritually unclean animal) itself. This too was an abomination.
Covenant Matters and Honest Dealings (23.19-25).
The section on what should be welcomed and what should not was then followed by the approach to covenant responsibilities fulfilled out of honest goodness; 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 (24-25). Honesty was required in all their affairs. There is the presumption in the first that the poor will have loans made available to them, in the second that freewill offerings will be made available for others to partake of, and in the third of the making available to all of ‘ready meals’ from growing grapes and grain (24-25). The three are thus closely connected by the thought of honesty of purpose and a readiness to provide.
Lending On Interest Allowable Only To Foreigners (23.19-20).
Lending by one Israelite to another on interest was not to be allowed. Such borrowing would normally be by those in desperate straits, for it was to be an agricultural society. To add interest would be to make such a person’s situation worse. The debt must not be added to in this way. (Exodus 22.25; Leviticus 25.36-37). But it covered all such loans. This regulation is unique in the Ancient Near East.
23.19 ‘You shall not lend on interest to your brother; interest of silver, interest of victuals, interest of anything that is lent on interest,’
The principle of not charging interest (or any extra payment) applied to all lending whether of silver or of goods or of food. Such were to be lent freely out of gratitude to Yahweh (compare 15.1-11). This did not necessarily indicate extortionate interest, although interest was usually very high in those days, it signified anything that would increase the debt. The helping hand must not be accompanied by the grasping fist. Any loan was to be an expression of love to Yahweh. Such an offering was acceptable to Yahweh.
23.20 ‘To a foreigner you may lend on interest, but to your brother you shall not lend on interest, that Yahweh your God may bless you in all that you put your hand to, in the land to which you go in to possess it.’
It was permissible to lend on interest to foreigners, demonstrating that there was nothing inherently wrong in lending on interest. In that case it would be commercial. The point was that advantage should not be taken of a fellow-Israelite’s hard luck. But they had no such covenant responsibility towards foreigners, and the foreigners would mainly be merchants and traders (which did not, however, justify extortionate interest rates). Then Yahweh their God would bless them in all that they put their hand to in the land ‘which they were entering in order to possess it’. They would from this see how Yahweh was the great lender, He was ‘giving’ them the land, they must behave in the same way towards the poor, and Yahweh Himself would then reward them.
Vows To Yahweh Must Be Honoured But Are Not Demanded.
23.21 ‘When you shall vow a vow to Yahweh your God, you shall not be slack to pay it, for Yahweh your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin in you.’
To make a vow to Yahweh was a serious matter. Once made there should be no hesitation about fulfilling it. There was provision for those who made unauthorised vows, for example a rash vow by a young woman or a wife (Numbers 30.4-5, 8 etc.). Apart from this Yahweh would expect the vow to be fulfilled, and not to fulfil it would be a breach of the covenant.
23.22 ‘But if you shall forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in you.’
However, it is made quite clear that vows were not demanded. They were totally a matter of freewill and love for Yahweh. There was no breach of covenant for the one who never made a vow.
23.23 ‘What is gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according as you have vowed to Yahweh your God, a freewill-offering, which you have promised with your mouth.’
However, once a vow of a freewill offering had been made, it was expected that it would be fulfilled. Note how the vow is seen as connected with and accompanied by a freewill offering, a ‘peace/wellbeing offering’. Apart from anything else a good number of people would benefit from the freewill offering, from which a feast would be prepared for family and friends, not to overlook Levites (12.6, 17; Leviticus 7.16-20; 22.21-22; 23.38; Numbers 15.3; 29.39). What was promised with the lips, and came from the mouth, must be observed (compare Numbers 30.2). A man could not get credit to himself by his vow, and then change his mind afterwards.
One of the prime requirements for those who would enter Yahweh’s presence was that having given their word they fulfilled it, even to their own cost (Psalm 15.4), an attitude we could do well to heed.
Food May Be Picked From A Neighbour’s Property To Be Eaten By Hand (23.24).
Further provision was made here for the poor, but it also applied to any who were feeling hungry and looked for the means at hand to satisfy it, especially when travelling. For the land was Yahweh’s and He may order as He would. He was the Master and Israel His slaves (32.36; Leviticus 25.55; Isaiah 1.3). Furthermore this goes along with 24.20-22 where they must leave gleanings because they had escaped a cruel foreign master in Egypt. Thus the master/slave relationship is very much in mind here.
23.24 ‘When you come into your neighbour’s vineyard, then you may eat of grapes your fill at your own pleasure, but you shall not put any in your vessel.’
The principle was simple. If they were in a vineyard belonging to an Israelite (a ‘neighbour’) they could eat as many grapes as they wished. However, they were not to take any away in a vessel or any other similar thing. The idea was not that everyone should raid the vineyards when they were hungry. The point was that no restriction was put on someone passing through as long as they only ate what they then required.
23.25 ‘When you come into your neighbour’s standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not move a sickle to your neighbour’s standing grain.’
The same applied to standing grain (not harvested grain). They could pluck ears with their hand and eat their fill. But they must not cut any down with a sharp tool. Thus none need go hungry, but this was not to be an excuse for theft or taking wrong advantage of a neighbour’s generosity. Compare Mark 2.23-28 and parallels.
Both these examples are based on Yahweh’s ownership of the land, and position with regard to Israel. He has the right to make these demands because the land and all it produces is in the end His. He is the master and owns the land and those who ‘rent’ the land are His servants so that He may do as He will. (Leviticus 25.55; Deuteronomy 32.36. This is precisely also the relationship in which Pharaoh stood to the Egyptians, compare Genesis 47.20). And yet they too will benefit for it is Yahweh who makes the land fruitful.
There is a lesson here for us all on neighbourly sharing and being generous, especially to have-nots, as we recognise in a similar way that what we have also fully belongs to Him, and we should use it as he chooses.
Chapter 24 Regulation On The Result of Divorce and On Fair Dealing and Consideration For Others.
Regulation On Divorce and Remarriage With The Same Woman (24.1-4).
This regulation caused much dissension between the Rabbis. The question for them was as to what ‘because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘some nakedness of a thing’, compare 23.14) in her’ meant. Shammai said that it signified fornication and unclean behaviour. Hillel argued that it simply meant anything that displeased the husband. Jesus came down on the side of Shammai, but limited it to adultery.
The argument that it could not refer to adultery, because the punishment for adultery was death, overlooks the fact that such a sentence would only be passed where the husband had lodged his case and called in witnesses. If the husband did not wish to pursue the death penalty, and no one else took up the case, it would not necessarily be exacted, unless the woman was discovered by others in open breach. (Compare how in the Matthew 1.19, in what appeared to be a similar case, ‘Joseph being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly’).
But this was not actually a law laying down a case for divorce. The Law in fact never lays down a case for divorce. It was disapproved of by God. This was about one particular point as to what was to happen when a man following custom had divorced a wife who then remarried, and was later divorced by the second husband, or whose second husband died. The point being made was that the first husband could not remarry her. That was seen as a step too far.
Such a position would in practise be very important. Otherwise there would always be the danger that the longstanding relationship of the first marriage might act as a constant magnet to draw the woman out of a second marriage to remarry her first husband. It might produce instability in the second marriage. It might even cause some women to poison their second husbands so as to be able to return to the first.
It also prevented reckless divorces gone through on the basis that if they wished they could always come together again. The introduction of this regulation here might suggest that Moses was very much aware of recent cases where these things had occurred.
This chapter again has ‘thou, thee’ all the way through apart from verses 7 and 8 where the change simply stresses that everyone is involved.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ the husband divorces his wife, and in the parallel may not take her again once she has remarried, even if her husband dies. In ‘b’ she marries another man, and in the parallel it is posited that she is divorced by him, or that he dies.
24.1 ‘When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing (literally ‘nakedness of a word/thing’) in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.’
Moses was really here only explaining that a divorce had taken place for some particular reason, without going into detail, although he undoubtedly did see it as a valid reason. He was not, however, intending it to be analysed, either by the Rabbis, or by would be divorce seekers of the present day. He expected his listeners to know the customary conditions for divorce, so he did not explain them here. His reference was not specific. But what did ‘nakedness of a word/thing’ convey. It would certainly seem to suggest some sexual transgression or something unpleasantly unclean. We can compare 23.14 where the same phrase is used and translated as ‘unclean’ and signifies a man’s waste products.
The word for ‘nakedness’ is regularly used of the shame of a person’s nakedness being revealed. It is not the word for ritually unclean nor for things which were just generally unseemly. So ‘nakedness’ usually connects with something to do with sex or the sexual organs. An act of adultery or near adultery for which he did not wish to press charges would fit the bill exactly, possibly a case where she had been discovered before the actual adultery took place, or of actual adultery where there were no witnesses, and his reticence on the matter is then explained by the fact that he divorced her rather than openly accusing her and that he was represented as loving her enough to be willing to take her back after the second divorce.
But while he did not press charges it had been sufficient of a blow to his family honour and his own sense of pride for him to give her a divorce contract in writing and send her away. Possibly out of shame she had even demanded it. It would seem, also, that she left without any rights, which would indicate that she had sinned grievously. That divorce was possible is made clear by 22.19, 29, but not on what conditions. Those verses were simply saying that never again could those particular men bring an action for divorce against that woman for any reason. (Others could accuse her but not them. They had forfeited their right by their behaviour. They were not considered trustworthy). So the grounds for divorce here seems to be restricted to sexual misconduct.
24.2 ‘And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.’
Once the woman was dismissed from his household she may take the step of going and becoming another man’s wife. (This was not giving permission for this, only stating that it may happen. Unless she returned home it was almost her only option). She had her written contract declaring her to be free. We note here that it was seemingly seen as perfectly acceptable by custom for her to remarry, but never stated in God’s Law. It was this remarriage that Jesus called adultery, and said that it was only allowed by God, although never authorised by Him, for the hardness of their hearts. The point was not that He had condoned it, but that He did not interfere with the general custom and actually forbid it.
24.3-4 ‘And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife, her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she is shown as (declared to be) defiled, for that is abomination before Yahweh, and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.’
But the second husband might hate her and also give her a bill of divorcement, and send her from his household. Here the condition for the divorce is the husband’s ‘hate’. It is the same word as that which caused a false accusation of adultery in 22.13-14. It is thus in the wider context connected with a man who accused his wife of sexual misbehaviour. (The fact that the one who made the false charge of adultery in 22.13-14 found it necessary to do so demonstrates that divorce was not easy). But no detail of why this second husband hated her is given. There is nothing to say what it was. For that is not what Moses was seeking to demonstrate here. It is probably suggesting in summary form the fact that she had done exactly the same as she did to her first husband.
Alternately the second husband might die. By adding the clause ‘if the second husband dies’ Moses has put us on the spot. We must immediately ask in passing why Moses complicated things and even mentioned the possibility of a divorce in the second case. It is clearly irrelevant to the case, for if it had not happened it would have made no difference to the argument. The second husband’s death would produce the same situation. Why then did he not just use the illustration that her second husband died? The answer can only be because he wanted to bring out what the woman was like, that all the fault lay with the woman. She was the kind of woman, said Moses, who might easily have had a second divorce. She was a disaster waiting to happen.
But the vital point was now reached. She was again free. However, we now learn that even under the old law the first husband cannot now remarry her. He knows that she was ‘shown as defiled’. But why was she ‘shown as defiled’? We may basically ignore the actions of the second husband, because the same would apply even if he had done nothing and had simply died. Thus we must concentrate on the first husband. And here we must ignore the effect of the theoretical remarriage to the first husband because she was ‘shown to be defiled’ before that had happened.
How had she been shown to be defiled? It may be by her behaviour which had caused the first divorce, of which possibly only he knew, or it may be by her, to his knowledge, having married a second time, or both. To him she had twice revealed herself as an adulteress. There was, however, no suggestion about whether she was or was not permitted to marry again. It was simply stated as something that did happen. No comment is made on it, although as we have seen Moses does make clear what he thought of her.
This is very important to note. Had God approved of divorce it would have been so important a factor that surely it would have been legislated for. Yet it was never legislated for. The only concession that God made was not to interfere with the custom because of the hardness of their hearts. He did not step in to interfere with the custom. But divorce nowhere has God’s blessing.
Thus the ‘showing of defilement’ only seems to apply to the first husband. He not only knew about the divorce certificate, but he also knew the facts behind the case. For him therefore to take her now would be for him to take a woman he knew to be permanently defiled, and defiled in such a way that the defilement could not be removed. For she had committed adultery by going with her second husband. And that could surely only indicate a continuingly adulterous woman. To marry her would result in his own permanent defilement and would defile the land (compare Jeremiah 3.1).
Another alternative explanation is that he was the only one who knew about the two (or one) divorce contracts. Others would have only known about one, or none at all. So he knew that she had been married twice while her first husband was still alive and was thereby an adulteress against him. Thus to marry her as an adulteress against him would be to confirm her adultery and be equally defiling, and would defile the land. She could no longer come to him as unsullied to become one with him. It would in Yahweh’s eyes be obscene. It would be making a mockery of all that marriage stood for. It would be so obscene that it would cause the land which had been given to them as an inheritance from Yahweh to sin. For the sins done in the land were the sins of the land.
Whichever way it was, (and in some ways they were saying the same thing), it was her continuing adulterous state that banned the marriage. And yet as the banning is only in relation to marriage with him it must connect with his personal knowledge of her. He would know that she had not just made one slip up, but was an adulteress through and through. Anyone else who married her might not realise what kind of woman she was, and would not therefore be deliberately sinning against the land. But he did know and would be doing so.
Further Commands Related to Relationships (24.5-15).
The relationship between the people was to be that of ‘neighbours’, and they must love their neighbour as themselves (Leviticus 19.18). Thus they must ensure that men received immediately the benefit of contracts (5 and 15), that their necessities should not be retained in pledges (6 and 13), that their households were protected from violation (7 and 10-11), and that they were not made unclean by another’s skin disease (8-9).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall he be charged with any business. He shall be free at home one year, and shall pleasure his wife whom he has taken. Advantage must not be taken of him for he has a right to receive immediately the benefits of his marriage. In the parallel advantage must not be taken of a hired servant. He too has a right to receive immediately the benefits of his contract. In ‘b’ no man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge, for he takes a man’s life to pledge, and in the parallel he must not retain a poor man’s pledge overnight but must restore it to him so that he may sleep in it. In ‘c’ if a man is found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, or sell him, then that thief must die, he has forced himself on and violated another’s household, and in the parallel when a man lends his neighbour any manner of loan, he must not go into his neighbour’s house to fetch his pledge, forcing himself on his household and violating it. He must stand outside, and the man to whom he lends will bring out the pledge to him. In ‘d’ all must take heed in the plague of skin disease, that they observe diligently, and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach them out of concern for their neighbour’s and the cleanliness of the camp, and in the parallel they must observe to do what Moses commanded them in this regard, remembering what Yahweh your God did to Miriam in smiting her with skin disease by the way as you came forth out of Egypt (and then healing her after which she had to observe her seven days - Numbers 12.10-15).
A Newly Married Man Free From Military Service For A Year (24.5).
The thought of the previous case caused Moses to want to relieve the gloom about marriage so he now introduced a case which revealed the other side of things. This is absolutely understandable in the context of Moses speaking to Israel. It is not so in the case of someone making up a story to hang on Moses. There are so many of these small indications of a speaker’s concern that no one could have had the consummate artistry to think of them all. They ring true as being what they claim to be.
This is the first in a series where the stress is on fair dealing and consideration towards the individual, with regard to relationships.
24.5 ‘When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, nor shall he be charged with any business. He shall be free at home one year, and shall pleasure his wife whom he has taken.’
Here was a man for whom marriage was a delight. He had taken a new wife and his only desire was to be at home with her. The Law concurred. For a whole year he was to be free from army call-up, or from any pressing business that would take him away from home, so that he could pleasure his wife.
It may well be true that part of the reason for this was in order to produce an heir so that his name would live on if he was killed in war. That no doubt was a reason behind the regulation. But that is not what Moses brought out in his speech. He was stressing the positive side of marriage as well rectifying the sad view of marriage revealed in the previous case. Here advantage must not be taken of the newly wed household. They must be allowed immediately to enjoy the benefits of the marriage.
A Mill Or Millstone May Not Be Taken In Pledge (24.6).
24.6 ‘No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge, for he takes a man’s life to pledge.’
The next case of fair dealing and consideration consisted of when a pledge was taken for a loan. Such a pledge must never be a man’s mill, or the detachable upper millstone. To take either would be to take away the man’s ability to prepare his food. This was probably the small mill that each household would have in order to grind the unmilled grain. By taking this the creditor would be taking the man’s very life. This must never happen.
A Kidnapper Shall Die (24.7).
Here we have a contrary example of unfair dealing and lack of consideration which must be punished by death. The kidnapper violates the household of his victims and violently interferes with their rights.
24.7 ‘If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, or sell him, then that thief shall die. So shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.’
A kidnapper who stole any Israelite, whether man, woman or child, with a view to making them slaves or selling them for slavery, must be sentenced to death. To make a slave of an Israelite was to reverse God’s deliverance and was unforgivable. By the kidnapper’s death this dreadful evil would be put away from their midst.
(This was not, of course, saying that as long as they were not treated as slaves or sold as slaves then the kidnapping was legal. This obvious case where silence tells us nothing is a warning to us not to read things into what is not said).
Compare Exodus 21.16 where all ‘man-stealing’ is worthy of death.
Dealing With Severe Skin Disease (24.8-9).
When men and women were aware of an unexplainable skin disease they must play fair and consider their neighbours and ensure that they went to the priest to be examined. This was another example which demonstrated that this was not a general giving of law, but a citation of law as it affected the people. The ritual details as regards the priests were omitted, what was important was what the people should do.
24.8-9 ‘Take heed in the plague of skin disease, that you observe diligently, and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you. As I commanded them, so you shall observe to do. Remember what Yahweh your God did to Miriam, by the way as you came forth out of Egypt.’
Note the different form used here. Moses has varied between apodicitic law, ‘you shall not--’, and case law, ‘if -- then you shall’. This is exhortatory for it is not citing a specific regulation. This continual mixture of forms is another indication of a genuine speech.
His listeners were clearly expected to know about the detailed cultic teaching in Leviticus 14. What he was concerned with here was that they would obey the priests’ instruction concerning it. They must do what the levitical priests told them in accordance with what God had commanded in His Instruction. What they taught was Yahweh’s command. They must observe to do it.
Let them all remember what Yahweh their God did to Miriam. She disobeyed Yahweh and was stricken with a skin disease and she also had to spend seven days outside the camp (Numbers 12.10-15). Let them also therefore be obedient to Yahweh, especially when it came to skin disease.
Others see the ‘take heed’ or ‘be on your guard’ as referring to obeying God’s commandments as given through the priests, with the warning that if they do not they may be stricken with skin disease like Miriam was. That would certainly fit the illustration better. But if it was so it would be the only case where reference is made to the commandments as coming through the priests (although see 27.9-10. But even that does not directly refer to the giving of the commandments).
Regulation of Pledges (24.10-13).
24.10-11 ‘When you lend your neighbour any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the pledge outside to you.’
This regulation stressed the sanctity of a man’s home and personal rights, which were not to be violated. A creditor must not burst in without warning, taking what he would (like the kidnapper), indeed must not burst in at all. He must be considerate and thoughtful, and on making his approach to obtain his pledge, stand outside and let the person bring it out to him. This might be in respect of an initial pledge, or a daily pledge. In the latter case the man would clearly be very poor. But his right to privacy must still be respected.
Furthermore it prevented the creditor from making his own choice of what was to be pledged. A man’s property was seen as his own, and that right must be respected. We must not make free with other people’s possessions.
24.12-13 ‘And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep holding on to his pledge, you shall surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you, and it shall be righteousness to you before Yahweh your God.’
And in the case of a very poor man, who has given his robe in pledge, the robe must be returned to him nightly so that he could sleep in it. For such a man would use his robe as his bed clothes. Then the man will bless his creditor, and this behaviour will count before God. God will see it and approve. They will be counted as covenant keepers and be blessed accordingly. Thus as with the taking of his handmill in verse 6 this is the taking of what is vital for his personal welfare.
We should note that, while Deuteronomy continually makes provision for those in need, ‘the poor’ are only mentioned in this chapter and chapter 15.4-11. This was partly because had Israel been obedient there would not have been poor in the land. so that regularly he speaks in terms of those of whom some would inevitably be poor, the fatherless, the widow and the resident alien/foreigner (10.18-19; 14.29; 16.11, 14; 27.19; 1.16; 5.14; 26.11-13; 29.11 compare Exodus 22.22-23) rather than directly of the poor. For he did not want reference to the poor to be taken as evidence that there inevitably would be poor people, other than as a result of misfortune. Poor people in Yahweh’s land were actually a contradiction. His attitude to the resident alien and the foreigner is especially paralleled in Leviticus 19.33-34, compare with this Deuteronomy 10.18, but is common throughout (Exodus 12.48-49; 20.10; 22.21; 23.9, 12; Leviticus 24.22; 25.6, 35; Numbers 9.14; 15.14-16, 26-30; 35.15).
Wages Shall Be Paid To The Poor And Needy On The Same Day (24.14-15).
Just as the newly married man must not be taken advantage of and must be allowed immediately to enjoy the fruits of his contract, so must it be with a hired servant. he too must receive his wages without delay.
24.14-15 ‘You shall not take advantage of a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brethren, or of your resident aliens who are in your land within your gates, in the same day you shall give him his hire, nor shall the sun go down on it, for he is poor, and sets his heart on it, lest he cry against you to Yahweh, and it be sin to you.’
The point here is that wages were not to be held back but paid according to the normal terms, in this case daily (compare Leviticus 19.13). Once the work was done satisfactorily payment should be made, and this applied whether the hired person was a native Israelite or a resident alien. No one must use their superior position to withhold such payment. The workers would probably be poor and would need the money immediately. It would be needed in order to feed their families. Their hearts were set on it for that very reason. The Israelites were reminded that otherwise the man might cry out to God, and it would then be counted against them as covenant breaking. In Leviticus 19.13 it was a simple commandment, here there is a reasoned explanation along with it as we might expect in a speech. We can compare here James 5.4 which has these verses in mind. He pointed out that when the Lord came in judgment such failures would be taken into account.
Regulations Relating To Fairplay (24.16-25.3).
Analysis.
Note in ‘a’ that each must be punished fairly, the guilty being punished and the innocent going free, and in the parallel the same is required. In ‘b’ justice must be given to the weak and in the parallel gleanings must be left for the weak. As regularly happens elsewhere a threefold pattern is introduced, in this case with regard to the gleanings.
No One Shall Die For Another’s Sin (24.16).
Fair play and consideration for others was even to reach to those responsible for justice. This idea of personal responsibility was not late. It appears in early law codes outside Israel, although as we would expect, in varying degrees. The unrighteous must be condemned and the innocent justified.
24.16 ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.’
The root principle of justice was to be that every man died for his own sin, and not for the sins of others (compare Numbers 27.3). The Law Code of Hammurabi sometimes applied the principle of ‘a life for a life’ in terms of the fact that if a man killed someone else’s son, his own son must be killed in recompense. This was never to be so in Israel. Each man was accountable for himself and himself alone as far as justice was concerned.
This is not contradictory to the principle that the sins of the fathers will be visited on the third and the fourth generation (5.9). There God was warning of how sin could, and regularly did, work out. He was warning of the consequences that could result. That is a very different thing from the administering of individual justice. The consequences brought about by evil in our lives are inevitable results, not God’s deliberate judgments.
Justice Must Be Done To The Weak (24.17-18).
Consideration and fair play must be extended to the very weakest in society. They most of all depend on it.
24.17 ‘You shall not distort the justice due to the resident alien, or to the fatherless, nor take the widow’s raiment to pledge,’
Compare here 1.16; 16.18-20. Justice was especially to be dispensed fairly to those who could not defend themselves. The resident alien and the fatherless had nowhere to look for help other than to justices. And taking a widow’s garment in pledge was so despicable that it could not even be considered.
But we cannot just turn away and leave it to the justices. It is our responsibility, as far as we are able, to ensure that they are just. We must all ensure that justice is being applied properly. And all must have consideration for the poor.
24.18 ‘But you shall remember that you were a bondsman in Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you from there. Therefore I command you to do this thing.’
And this especially applied to Israel, for they had been poor. They were to remember that they had been themselves bondsmen in the land of Egypt, and that they had not delivered themselves, but that it was Yahweh Who had paid the price of their deliverance by His display of mighty power. That especially is why they are commanded to do this thing.
Christians have another motive. They remember the One Who though He was rich, became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich (2 Corinthians 8.9).
The Gleanings Must Be Left For The Poor (24.19-22).
One of Yahweh’s means of ensuring provision for the poor in the land would be that Israelite farmers out of their prosperity were to leave in their fields, vineyards and orchards the remnants of what was gathered, which are termed ‘the gleanings’. A description was now given of these in rhythmic form.
24.19
We have presented it in this way in order to bring out the pattern. Each section ends with, ‘it (the gleanings) shall be for the resident alien, for the fatherless and for the widow’. But above that in each case is described a type of gleanings.
Firstly came the grain harvest. When harvesting the grain and producing the sheaves in the field, which were then gathered in, a sheaf might easily be overlooked here and there because there was so much. This sheaf was to be left as gleanings. And in fact some further gleanings were to be left in the corners of the fields (Leviticus 19.9) and any that was dropped in gathering must be left (Leviticus 23.22). Compare here Ruth 2. This was so that Yahweh their God might see it and as a result bless them in the work of their hands.
Then came the olive gathering. The branches would be beaten in order to bring down the olives. But some obstinate olives would stay in place. They were not to make another attempt. What remained was to be left as gleanings. When gathering the grapes, which would be done swiftly and expertly, every now and then a bunch might escape notice. These were to be left as gleanings (compare Leviticus 19.10).
24.22 ‘But you shall remember that you were a bondsman in Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you from there. Therefore I command you to do this thing .’
And they should do this because they remembered that they were bondsmen in Egypt, and had through it learned compassion for those worse off than themselves. And that is why they were commanded to do this thing.
Note how this phrase, ‘you shall remember that you were a bondsman in the land of Egypt’ connects the perverting of justice for the weak and helpless (verse 17 with verse 18) with the leaving of gleanings for the weak and helpless (verses 19-21 with verse 22). Their experiences were to give them compassion for the weak and helpless in every way.
Chapter 25 Doing What Is Truly Right And Avoiding Shame.
This chapter continues with the idea of fairness, and the thought of consideration and doing right and runs throughout, commencing with the requirement for true justice and a fair hearing with a limitation on beatings, and dealing with not muzzling the ox, surrogate motherhood, decency and right behaviour when quarrelling, and correct weights and measures. There is an emphasis on shaming for those who fail (‘vile’ - verse 3; ‘spit in his face’ - verse 9; ‘cut off her hand’ - verse 12; ‘abomination’ verse 16). Thus a beating shames the recipient, and must not therefore be too heavy (verse 3). The woman refused her Levirate rights shames her brother-in-law by spitting in his face (verses 9-10). The violent and unscrupulous woman is to openly bear her shame before all, for they would be able to tell from the mutilation what she had done (verse 12). False weights and measures are an abomination, they bring shame on those who use them (verse 16). It concludes with the fate of Amalek on which comes the greatest shame of all.
(We have here ‘thou, thee’ all the way through).
Judgment Is To Be Righteous Judgment (25.1-3).
As we have seen this connects up with the previous chapter in the analysis of 24.16-25.3. And yet it also connects up in thought with what follows. A reminder that we must nor straitjacket Moses’ thought or delivery.
25.1 ‘If there be a controversy between men, and they come for judgment, and the judges judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.’
Right justice was so important that Moses, like any good preacher repeated the idea a number of times (1.15-18; 16.18-20;17.8-13; 19.15-21). Here he summarised the situation quite simply by declaring that in any controversy that came for judgment which the judges judge, they must have only one aim in mind, to declare righteous those who are righteous, and condemn those who are unrighteous, without fear or favour.
We are probably to see that one of the combatants may well have charged the other with something that deserved a beating. (Imprisonment at that time was often not an option). A guilty verdict would mean the offender was beaten, a not guilty verdict might see the accuser beaten if he was seen as a false witness (19.16-21),
The Public Beating (2-3)
25.2-3 ‘And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his wickedness, by number. Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed it, lest, if he should exceed it, and beat him above this with many stripes, then your brother should seem vile to you.’
But any punishment must be reasonable and controlled. If a man was to be beaten the judge must cause him to lie down, and then he would be beaten in his presence, probably with a rod (Exodus 21.20), the number of stripes determined by what was seen as his deserts. But the number of stripes must not be more than forty under any circumstances. Forty stripes as a maximum parallel the Middle Assyrian laws and were probably a recognised standard of what a man could bear at that time, although earlier the Code of Hammurabi had allowed sixty.
Compare here Proverbs 10.13; 19.29; 26.3. This was the Egyptian method of punishment as depicted on monuments where the guilty party was laid flat on the ground, and being held fast by the hands and feet, received their strokes in the presence of the judge
We notice here the concern for justice with a mixture of mercy. Being prone rather than strung up would ensure that the beating was more limited in power, the judge’s presence would ensure fair play, the fact that he had to be present would, apart from the most heartless, hopefully make him consider his sentence more carefully, the strokes were to be counted, and they must not number more than forty. Much later on they were limited to thirty nine in case of wrong counting, but the means of application became more vicious. This was comparatively compassionate.
If more than forty stripes were given it would mean that they were looking on their fellow-tribesman as vile and worthy of humiliation, which would be contrary to the covenant, and therefore not to be allowed. The dignity of an Israelite was considered to be important, and the purpose of the punishment was restoration to good covenant citizenship.
Regulations Concerning Fair Treatment To Another Party (25.4-16).
The principle in these regulations is that of fair and just treatment towards other parties. The ox who treads out the grain must be treated fairly and be given seed (grain) (4), a deceased brother must be treated fairly and be given seed (children) (5-10), a combatant must be treated fairly and his seed producing capability not be attacked (11-12), a purchaser must be treated fairly when he buys seed (grain) (13-16). (The play on the word ‘seed’ is mine, but the play on ideas is the writer’s).
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ we have cases of fair dealing. The ox treads the grain and his owner must therefore give him the right to eat of it. He is entitled to fair measure. In the same way in the parallel the seller must give to the purchaser fair measure when weighing out the goods. The purchaser has the right to eat of what is justly his. In ‘b’ a brother who lives in the same household must go in to the wife of his deceased brother, if he has no son, in order to produce seed for his deceased brother. The family name must be maintained, and otherwise he is rendering his deceased brother childless. In the parallel a woman who seeks to render a man childless by squeezing his private parts must be severely punished. The aim of both is to prevent childlessness.
In the central section c d d c each section has within it a statement which balances with another statement. In ‘c’ the man refuses to produce seed for his brother the wife of the deceased brother declares “my husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me” and in the parallel the brother is shamed because his name shall be called in Israel, “The house of him who has his shoe loosed”. In ‘d’ the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stand, and say, ‘I do not like to take her,” then his brother’s wife will come to him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face and in the parallel, she will answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house”.
The Working Ox Not To Be Muzzled (25.4).
At first sight this may appear totally out of place. But it actually follows the ideas of the previous two regulations. In the first case out of humanity gleanings were to be left for the weak and helpless, so should grain be available to the oxen who trod out the grain. Secondly the man found guilty was beaten with a rod in order to correct him, and the oxen would be hit with a rod to drive them to tread down the grain. This would be a common sight. It may even be suggesting that the ox must be allowed to partake of the equivalent of the gleanings (24.19) lest it had to be beaten to make it perform its function (25.2-3). Did Moses also have in mind the Israelite who was beaten in order to restore him to a productive life, with the thought that he should not be made unproductive by too severe treatment? The human ‘ox’ must not be muzzled.
This verse also fits in with what follows, introducing the idea of treating others fairly in the normal course of life.
25.4 ‘You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain.’
Once the grain had been gathered (24.19) it would be threshed by using an ox to tread it down to separate the grain from the chaff with its hooves, after which it would be tossed up into the prevailing wind, which came regularly at that time of year, to complete the separation. The grain would fall to the ground, and the lighter chaff would be blown away.
Sometimes a yoke of oxen would pull a threshing sledge round and round, which was a large block of wood with sharp stones fitted underneath, on which the driver would stand, which would do a better job of separation, and would grind the stubble to chaff.
In either case the ox was not to be muzzled. Just as the poor could gather the gleanings (24.19), so was the ox to be allowed his fodder. (Just as it also benefited from the seventh day Sabbath - 5.14). Not only would it work more contentedly and possibly save it from having to be beaten (was there a contrast in Moses’ mind with the man who had to be beaten?), but it was also not felt to be seemly to make an ox work on its natural food and not be able to eat of it. The labourer was worthy of its hire. Just as certain unlike things should be kept apart (22.9-11), so others which were compatible should not unreasonably be kept apart.
It may well be that this was already a proverb and had wider implications, signifying the duty of giving due reward and appreciation for services rendered. Paul used this example to illustrate the need for Christians to give to assist the work of the ministry (1 Corinthians 9.9; 1 Timothy 5.18).
Husband’s Brother’s (Levirate) Marriage (25.5-10).
The purpose of this regulation was in order to ensure that a man who died childless had a son who could inherit his property, and, more importantly, would continue his name. To an Israelite these were matters of supreme importance. It was to be achieved by his brother acting as his proxy and discreetly having sexual relations with his deceased brother’s wife so as to implant within her the family seed, who would then be looked on as his deceased brother’s, and inherit his name and his land. This practise was widespread in the ancient world.
One example of this occurs in Genesis 38.1-30, where there was a clear unwillingness to carry it through, but where Tamar managed by manoeuvring to achieve her end.
25.5 ‘If brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married without to a stranger, her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.’
We should note the condition. The brothers must be ‘dwelling together’ (compare Psalm 133.1). That meant that they must be living on the same ‘estate’, although not necessarily in the same house, with their lands jointly worked as a family concern. They would have decided to keep the family estates together rather than split them up when they inherited. It therefore suggested a close family bond. Family feeling and family unity was especially strong among the ancients. This condition indicated that the aim to keep the estates together and the maintenance of the deceased brother’s name were central to the whole idea.
The idea then was that the surviving brother should take his brother’s wife as one of his own wives in order to keep things in the family, although it may well be that she had a more independent status and was not necessarily seen as a fully functioning wife. Any land that she had brought with her would then remain in the family and not go to ‘strangers’, as would any wealth that had passed to her. She should not need to look for an outsider to marry, but would remain as a part of the family circle. And the brother would have discreet sexual relations with her in order to ‘perform the duty of a husband’s brother’ towards her, so as to raise up a son for his brother. This was the only case where a woman having sexual relations with her husband’s brother was allowed. Leviticus 18.16; 20.21 refer either to where the brother was still living or to cases where the marriage was for the wrong reasons. Intention was everything, and would be known to Yahweh. There was nothing sordid or behind hand about it. The aim was totally meritorious, to preserve the brother’s name.
Numbers 27.8-11 may suggest that it may not have been seen as necessary when there were daughters who could inherit, although as that would not ensure the preservation of the deceased husband’s name, it was probably seen as second best. That case may have in mind circumstances where a Levirate marriage was not possible through a failure to be able to meet the conditions in one way or another (through, for example, the refusal mentioned in verse 7, or because the family was no longer a close family unit, or because the wife was also dead). But once they had inherited their father’s land the women were not then to marry outside the tribe, taking the land with them (see Numbers 36.1-9). This does bring out how important it was seen to be at that time that land remained within the family and within the tribe. And that the Levirate marriage would ensure.
25.6 ‘And it shall be, that the firstborn that she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.’
Any firstborn son would then be looked on as the deceased brother’s. He would succeed to his name and to his inheritance, so that his name might not be blotted out of Israel, and so that the dead brother might live on in his son. Before he died he might well have pleaded with his brother to do this for him. The blotting out of the name was seen as an appalling catastrophe. It was ceasing to be.
25.7 ‘And if the man does not like to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel. He will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.”
It was always open to the brother to refuse, although that was looked on with disapproval. The widow could then go to the city elders as they sat and conferred in the gate area, and inform them that the brother refused to maintain his deceased brother’s name in Israel by bearing children in his name, that he refused to perform ‘the duty of a husband’s brother’.
It should be noted that while in this case it is the widow taking the initiative, that might not always be the case. Sometimes it would be the family who urged it on the widow. We only hear of the cases where difficulties arose. But it was certainly to the widow’s advantage, for then her son would inherit his father’s land and she would, along with him, have a good level of independence. Not that all widows became totally dependent on others. Quite apart from the issue of the land, she might have inherited wealth from her husband, and even have had lands of her own (Numbers 27.8-11). Note that the land did not immediately pass into someone else’s possession. Time was clearly allowed for her to achieve a Levirate marriage and have a son.
25.8-9 ‘Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stand, and say, ‘I do not like to take her,” then shall his brother’s wife come to him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and she shall answer and say, “So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.” ’
The elders of the city were then to add their weight behind the widow’s plea. This was something to be favoured by all. But if the brother still declared his intention of not fulfilling the responsibility it was accepted, but it was made quite clear to the brother that his failure to honour his brother was not appreciated.
His brother’s wife was to come to him in the presence of the elders, loose and take of one of his sandals, and spit in his face, saying ‘so shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house’.
The loosing of the sandal may have indicated that he could be no longer seen as having a comfortable path ahead. His future prospects had been damaged. Or it may have been indicating that he had now lost his authority over anything that she possessed, which he would otherwise have benefited by. She was now free from his authority, and was no longer ‘under his feet’ (compare Psalm 8.6). Or it may have indicated loss of possession of the land, which he could no longer tread on. The case of Naomi indicated that property did not automatically pass to the nearest relative on death but went with the widow. Thus Numbers 27.8-11 might have been dependent on the right treatment of the widow. Spitting in the face was an indication of derision and disrespect (Numbers 12.14; Job 30.10). He was revealed as having failed in his duty.
25.10 ‘And his name shall be called in Israel, “The house of him who has his shoe loosed.” ’
From then on his reputation would be tarnished. His house would be known as “The house of him who has his shoe loosed.” He had broken up the family unity, and divided the family. Instead of maintaining his brother’s name, he had tarnished his own. To be shoeless was for an Israelite a sign of indignity (Isaiah 20.2-3).
While the incident in Ruth 4 illuminates what happened here the circumstances were somewhat different and illustrate the complications of succession law about which we would be wise not to dogmatise. There the responsibility of the kinsman redeemer was in mind, not that of the brother. But it still had to do with retaining land in the wider family.
A Woman Shall Not Touch The Private Parts of a Man Who Is Not Her Husband.
In the last regulation the ability of a deceased brother to produce children through a dutiful brother and wife was maintained. We are probably to see here the opposite case. The ability of a man to produce is destroyed by a revengeful woman. Whereas the last regulation would bring the woman praise, this would bring her humiliation and mutilation, for her aim was exactly the opposite.
25.11-12 ‘When men strive together one with a brother, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who smites him, and puts forth her hand, and takes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity.’
This rather unusual case may simply refer to a gross lack of decency, a woman deliberately and inexcusably taking a man’s private parts in her hand. This would undoubtedly have been looked on with horror as being something against all decency. But it may well refer to something more significant, the fact that what she did was with the intention of deliberately making the man unable to bear children, possibly by her crushing his private parts (compare 23.1). She was preventing the fulfilment of God’s command to ‘go forth and multiply’ and removing him from the assembly of Yahweh. This latter would explain the seriousness of the penalty, which was unquestionably intended to ensure that such a thing never happened. This is the only place in the Old Testament where mutilation is seemingly specifically prescribed as a punishment because of the dreadful mutilation that she caused, although it was assumed in the lex talionis as the ultimate measure.
Thus she would never again be able to caress her husband. Indeed the ‘cutting off’ of the ‘hand’ may actually refer to some action which also made it impossible for her to conceive, cutting off her ability to bear children in retaliation for her act of preventing the man having children, which would be seen as fulfilling the law of lex talionis (an eye for an eye). ‘Hand’ is sometimes used as a euphemism for the sexual organ, and the word used for ‘hand’ in verse 12 differs from that for ‘hand’ in verse 11 suggesting that some distinction might be made. But the mutilation itself, in retaliation for the mutilation she had caused, would be a constant proclamation of what kind of woman she was. It would be her greatest shame.
Weights and Measures Are To Be Just (25.13-16).
God dealt totally honestly with His people and His judgments were always righteous. When He weighed them the balances were always accurate. The very idea of weighing was that it ensured accuracy and fairness. In the same way must His people use accurate weights and measures. There was clearly widespread use of false weights and measures in the ancient world, an art which has not been lost. See Leviticus 19.35-37; Proverbs 11.1; 16.11; 20.10; Ezekiel 45.10; Amos 8.5; Micah 6.11.
What is in mind here is the purchase and sale of produce, for it is mainly that which would require weighing. In the background may be the thought that the purchaser has laboured for his silver, as the ox did on threshing the grain, and must not therefore be ‘muzzled’ by being given short measure. But basic to it all is just dealing.
25.13-15 ‘You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a great and a small. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a great and a small. Perfect and just weight shall you have; a perfect and just measure shall you have; that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.’
Here God speaks very strongly against dishonesty in selling goods. To use different weights depending on the customer was inexcusable. To use different measures was equally inexcusable. The very purpose of weights and measures was to demonstrate fair dealing. To have ones which were themselves dishonest was total hypocrisy, and it especially hit at the poor and trusting, and those who had laboured hard to obtain food.
The twofold weights might have been used one for buying, and the other for selling, or one for weighing the goods and the other for weighing the silver, or one for the astute and the other for the simple. They could produce a combination of deceit. But this was not to be. All their dealings were to be totally open and honest. The weights and measures used must be precise, accurate and genuine. Then they would deserve to have long life in the land which Yahweh their God was giving them.
25.16 ‘For all who do such things, even all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God.’
For any dishonest action, and any dishonest behaviour is an abomination to Yahweh. The language is very strong. Such behaviour was firmly contrary to the covenant, and God hated it.
Amalek To Be Punished For Their Guilt (25.17-19).
This sudden introduction of this curse on Amalek may seem to take us by surprise, but it in fact a closing echo of 23.1-9, while at the same time finalising the whole section from chapter 12 onwards (see below). In 23.1-9 we saw described those who were excluded from the assembly of Yahweh. Here was a people who were to be more than excluded, they were to be blotted out completely. Thus here it stands alone as a conclusion to the whole.
Nevertheless it contrasts with the ensuring of the perpetuation of Israel (verses 5-10, 15), and the perpetuation of the names of the children of Israel (verse 6). And it brings to a close this final section of regulations with a stern reminder that God is not mocked, and that He watches over His covenant people, and that all who come against them and deal treacherously with them will perish. It will then be followed by Israel’s submission to the people to the Overlord Who has so delivered them (26.1-15).
Analysis in the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ they are to remember what Amalek did and in the parallel they are not to forget but must blot out the remembrance of Amalek. In ‘b’ they are reminded how Amalek made them ill at ease and restless, therefore in the parallel, when they are at rest in the land which Yahweh is giving them they must proceed against them.
25.17-18 ‘Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth out of Egypt, how he met you by the way, and smote the hindmost of you, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God.’
We must recognise in what is said here that God knows men’s hearts. He was aware of the total degradation of the Canaanites, and the untrustworthiness of Moab and Ammon, but He was even more aware that Amalek could not be redeemed. They were totally treacherous. They did indeed later combine with Edom and Moab in continual merciless raids on Israel (Judges 3.12-13). And like the Canaanites they must be totally destroyed
They had only to think back to see why this should be so. For even as they were coming forth from Egypt the Amalekites were lying in wait and treacherously attacked the rear of the exhausted party, where the weak and most vulnerable were. They had no fear of God (Exodus 17.16). To them the weak and vulnerable, clearly escaping from Egypt, were not seen as an opportunity to show kindness or to give hospitality, but as an easy target to be taken advantage of. They had revealed themselves as totally devoid of that fear of God which alone could make a man redeemable (Exodus 17.8-15). Indeed it was then that, at Yahweh’s command, Moses had written down the whole incident as a permanent record against them, and as a testimonial to the fact that God would ‘put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven’ (Exodus 17.14).
25.19 ‘Therefore it shall be, when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies round about, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. You shall not forget.’
And it was now confirmed that that was what He would do. Once Israel had been given rest from all their enemies (it could wait until they were safely established in the land) then He would blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven, as He had previously declared in Exodus 17.14. They were under the Ban. For the partial fulfilment see 1 Samuel 15.1-33, and for its completion 1 Chronicles 4.43. Amalek was the ultimate picture of those who do not fear God and who refuse utterly to obey Him.
‘When Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies round about.’ This is a marker which connects these verses with chapter 12, which began this section of the book. There it had led in to the establishment of the place which Yahweh would choose and to their abundant worship of Him (12.10-12), here it was to lead in to the blotting out of Amalek. The section began in glory, it ends in judgment. Light must triumph. Darkness must be obliterated. And in between His people must do His will.
We can therefore see in this description a picture of the destruction of Satan and his forces. Like the Serpent, the Amalekites had sought to destroy God’s project right at the beginning. But Yahweh will bring His people into the land and bring them into rest, then He will establish His name there and dwell among them, while their darkest enemies both within (the Canaanites) and without (the Amalekites) will be removed for ever. So one day will it be with Satan.
There is also the stark warning that it is possible for people to come to such a state that turning to God becomes impossible because their hearts are too hardened. If we do not seek Him wile we are young, we might find that age has hardened us so that we never seek Him.
VI SUBMISSION AND TRIBUTE TO THE OVERLORD (26.1-15).
The detailed covenant stipulations having been laid out the call now goes out to offer due tribute to their Overlord through the offering of firstfruits and the special third year tithe.
Chapter 26 Submission To And Offering Tribute To Their Overlord.
Having covered the regulations of what their Overlord required of them (12-25) Moses now moves on to their submission and offering of tribute to Him. This tribute is specifically in terms of the land that has been given to them and is proportionate to its fruitfulness.
He deals with two main offerings, beginning with the offering of the firstfruits at the Sanctuary (18.4) at the Feast of Sevens (Weeks - see Exodus 23.16; 34.22; Leviticus 23.17; Numbers 28.26) as a kind of rental and act of worship, and as an acknowledgement to Him of His goodness in giving them the land (verses 1-11), followed later by the confirmation at the Sanctuary (‘before Yahweh your God’ - verse 13) of the offering of the third year tithe (14.28-29) of which they had kept nothing back (verses 12-15). Their submission was then complete. Moses then closes off the whole section with a reminder of what their submission meant (16-19).
Both of these are in a sense new offerings, the first because never before have they had such an abundance of first fruits of this kind to offer. The second because it is an extension of the tithe, arising again because of the abundance of the fruit of the land. Both are tributes for this wonderful new land that He is giving them.
There is here again a connection with chapter 12, something which we also saw in the previous verse (25.19), for in verse 2 they are to go to the place which Yahweh will choose in order to bring Him their offerings (compare 12.5-7, 11, 17). So this in a sense takes up from that point. Chapters 12 had introduced the idea and chapter 26 reveals its fulfilment. But we should note that neither the firstfruits nor the tithe of the third year are mentioned in chapter 12 (although tithes and firstlings are). That was concerned with worship offerings. These too are worship offerings, but we have here also a new element, the offering of tribute to the Overlord for the gift of His land.
There is also connection with chapters 1-11 in the declaration concerning ‘the land which Yahweh swore to our fathers to give us’ (compare 1.8; 6.10, 18, 23; 7.13; 8.1; 9.5; 10.11; 11.9, 21).
But it should be noted that in chapter 12 there is no reference either to the firstfruits or the third year tithe. The offerings described there were the ones which were already being offered by the Israelites at the time when Moses was speaking, although the tithes and firstlings did point to them. These then are specifically new in order to celebrate the coming reception of the land.
So the two chapters 12 and 26 clearly provide the framework for what has been described in between, with the former emphasising the worship of Yahweh overall, and the latter stressing tribute and worship for the land. But chapter 26 is also preparatory to what follows, for having offered their tribute the blessing and cursings of the covenant must be declared and the covenant must be renewed, witnessed and sealed. This chapter demands a response from the Overlord and the renewal of the covenant.
The aspect of submission comes out especially in three declarations, the first in verse 3, the second larger one in verses 5-10, and the third in verses 13-15. In them they acknowledge Yahweh’s provision from the land and declare their openly revealed loyalty to Him revealed in the tribute that they have brought. To which Moses responds on behalf of Yahweh in verses 16-19.
These submissions will not, of course, both occur at the same time. Assuming that the offering of the firstfruits would begin, if only in a primitive way, once they had first entered the land and had been able to plant and grow crops, the firstfruits would be offered at the Feast of Sevens beginning with the first harvest after entering the land, at least a year after entry, while the offering of the third year tithe could not by its nature be offered until the third year. On the other hand the tribes to the east of Jordan might have firstruits earlier. But they would be required to fit into the pattern of the third year tithe.
The Offering of the Firstfruits (26.1-11).
The offering of the firstfruits was to take place at the Feast of Sevens when the harvest had hopefully been gathered in. Here Israel were commanded to gather their firstfruits once they were in the land and bring them to Yahweh at the place that He will choose, declaring their gratitude to Him as they acknowledged what He had done for them, and placing their tribute before Him.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ when they come in to the land which ‘Yahweh their God’ gives them for an inheritance, to possess it, and dwell in it, that they must take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which they must bring in from your land that Yahweh their God ‘gives them’, and put it in a basket, and go to the place which Yahweh their God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, and in the parallel they are to rejoice in all the good that ‘Yahweh their God’ has ‘given them’. In ‘b’ they must come to the priest who will be in those days, and say to him, “I declare this day to Yahweh your God, that I am come to the land which Yahweh swore to our fathers to give us” and in the parallel declare that “I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground, which you, O Yahweh, have given me” and set it down before ‘Yahweh your God’ and pay Him homage and worship Him (note here the reversal of ‘Yahweh your God’ and Yahweh’ in the second part). In ‘c’ the priest will take the basket out of their hand, and set it down before the altar of Yahweh their God and in the parallel they will point to it and declare “And He has brought us into this place (maqom), and has given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey” as indicated by the basket of firstfruits.
In ‘d’ they declare And you shall answer and say before Yahweh your God, “A wandering Aramaean (or ‘an Aramaean ready to perish’) was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number, and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous”, while in the parallel they declare “and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid on us hard bondage, and we cried to Yahweh, the God of our fathers, and Yahweh heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression, and Yahweh brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders”. Note that both statements commence with a picture of lowliness, refer to Egypt, and multiply nouns ‘great, mighty, and populous’ compared with ‘our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression’ and ‘with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders’.
26.1 ‘And it shall be, when you are come in to the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and possess it, and dwell in it,’
This was to take place when they have come into the land, and possess it and dwell in it. As ever the basis for what they are doing would be that Yahweh had brought them safely into the land, which He had given them as an inheritance to possess and dwell in (compare 12.1; 25.19. See also 15.4; 17.14; 19.2, 14; 21.1). They were to enjoy that land to the full. And as can be seen His aim was that there be no poor (15.4), that no innocent blood be spilled there (19.2; 21.1), and that no ancient landmarks be removed (19.14). Their future would thus consist in personal security, security of life, and security of property for all, a land of blessing indeed.
26.2-3 ‘That you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land that Yahweh your God gives you, and you shall put it in a basket, and shall go to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, and you shall come to the priest who will be in those days, and say to him, “I declare this day to Yahweh your God, that I am come to the land which Yahweh swore to our fathers to give us.” ’
Thus when the time of growth arrives their first move must be to gather from ‘the first of all the fruit of the ground’, and bring it in from the land that Yahweh has given them and go to the place which Yahweh their God has chosen. Note the repetition of the fact that it is the land that Yahweh has given them. This is what the firstfruit is declaring, gratitude to their Overlord for that land. And in order to express that gratitude they were going to the place which He had chosen and caused His name to dwell there, and where, from an earthly point of view (see verse 15), He now dwelt in His glory. They were going in order to declare their loyalty and pay tribute.
They will come to the priest (the appointed Priest at the Sanctuary, at this time Eliezer) who will be in office in those days (which yet lie ahead while Moses is speaking), with a basket of produce carefully selected from the firstfruits, and make their first covenant declaration. ‘I declare this day to Yahweh your God that I am come to the land which Yahweh swore to our fathers to give us’. Note what the heart of their confession is, that Yahweh swore to their fathers to give them the land (1.8; 6.10, 18, 23; 7.13; 8.1; 9.5; 10.11; 11.9, 21), and that that is why they have come there in obedience to His will, because they have now received it at His hands, as the firstfruits that they have brought amply demonstrate. They are presenting their credentials and evidence of faithful service to their Overlord’s representative, as any tribute bearer would do.
What a contrast is this noble and humble declaration to that which was forbidden in 9.4 which was a boast of innocence. Here they do not declare their innocence, they rather recognise that they are there because of Yahweh’s gracious oath to the patriarchs their fathers.
The basket would be of wicker-work (compare 28.5, 17). For the law of the firstfruit see 18.4; Exodus 23.16, 19; 34.22, 26; Leviticus 23.17; Numbers 18.12-13; 28.26.
Apart from the description here which is very much abbreviated we do not know how this ceremony was first kept. But in later times every family head would bring his basket of firstfruits, and it would be brought with the above words to the priest, who would wave it before Yahweh at the altar before setting it down. The second declaration would then be made by the worshipper who would then, on speaking the words in verse 10, himself present the basket ‘before Yahweh’.
26.4 ‘And the priest shall take the basket out of your hand, and set it down before the altar of Yahweh your God.’
As each family head comes with their basket of firstfruits and makes the declaration in verse 3, the priest will then accept their basket of firstfruits, and ‘set it down before the altar of Yahweh’, as tribute to Him as their Great Overlord.
The people will then make, before the Overlord’s representative, their second, longer covenant declaration given in verse 5 onwards, in which they express their gratitude for what the Great King has done for them. It commences with a brief history of the past emphasising their previous lowliness, celebrates Yahweh’s deliverance and how He has brought them to this land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and then offers the firstfruit of the ground which He has given them, at which point they pay Him homage. It is a typical covenant response.
26.5 ‘And you shall answer and say before Yahweh your God, “A wandering Aramaean (or ‘an Aramaean ready to perish’) was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number, and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.” ’
This is to be the people’s covenant declaration, as no doubt formulated by Moses for their use. They are to begin by declaring their background. Their father was ‘an Aramaean (Arami)’. That is, he had come originally from Aram. Both Abraham, and then Jacob on his return to Canaan, had come from Aram to the north of Canaan (Genesis 11.31; 25.20; 28.5, 7; 31.20, 24; compare Hosea 12.12), and Jacob’s whole family, from whom the children of Israel were theoretically descended, had been born in Aram. The description was probably intended to signify humility. The ‘wandering Aramaeans’ might well have been despised in Egypt.
‘Wandering/ready to perish’ (either is possible, for the word has connotations of wandering hopelessly).’ This may signify that as a result of the famine Jacob had been ready to perish, but more probably in this context emphasises the fact that he had no settled home but had wandered from place to place because they had no land of their own. See Psalm 105.12-25.
But either way he had gone with his households to Egypt to reside there because of his need, also on a temporary basis (Exodus 1.1-5). They had at first been ‘few in number’ (compare Genesis 34.30). They were probably a few thousand made up of ‘seventy’ close family members with their households (Genesis 46.8-27). As Abraham’s household included 318 fighting men (Genesis 14.14) it may well be that the households of the twelve patriarchs contained a great deal more. Remember how they had decimated Shechem (Genesis 34).
But while dwelling in Egypt they had become a mighty and populous nation because Yahweh had been with them (Exodus 1.20). Note the emphasis on what Yahweh had done. They were wanderers and they were few, but from the few He had produced this multitude (compare 1.10; Psalm 105.12-25).
In mind in these words is their change in circumstances. They had been humble, but they had become great. They had been wanderers, but now they had Yahweh’s land. They had been few and weak, but now they were a mighty and populous nation.
26.6-8 “And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid on us hard bondage, and we cried to Yahweh, the God of our fathers, and Yahweh heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression, and Yahweh brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders,”
Their potted history, provided to their Overlord’s representative as an act of submission, continues. Egypt had dealt ill with them, afflicting them and laying on them hard bondage. The result had been that they had cried to Yahweh (Exodus 2.23; 3.9) the God of their fathers (Exodus 3.6,13-16). And He had seen their threefold afflictions (Exodus 3.7; 4.31), their ‘affliction and toil and oppression’. Note the threefold emphasis indicating the completeness of their troubles. They had been afflicted, they had toiled, they had been oppressed. Life had been very difficult.
But their mighty Deliverer, the God of their fathers, had intervened. He had delivered them and brought them forth out of Egypt with fivefold power, ‘with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs and with wonders’. The fivefoldness stresses that the deliverance was greater than the affliction and made with covenant power. Five is the number of covenant. It incorporated great strength and power, awesomeness, and miraculous manifestations, all drawing out the mightiness of their Deliverer. (Exactly what any Overlord would want to hear).
The whole declaration reads like an ancient and carefully worded submission, based on the early Exodus history, stressing the humbleness of the submitter (a wandering Aramaean would have been seen as the lowest of the low) and the glory of the Deliverer, and even the sceptical agree that it is indeed very ancient. In view of its tone it is probable that Moses prepared it in readiness for the occasion, for he knew the etiquette for approaching great overlords, but it may be that something like it was already in use in their current ceremonies. However, later generations would not be likely to have thought in terms of their father Jacob as ‘an Aramaean’. But we should note that it is not a creed. This is not the place for a creed. It is rather a declaration of what they are, in humble terms, and what their great Overlord has done for them. Sinai would not fit in here. The emphasis is on their previous weak and humble state and their mighty deliverance, not on the niceties of the covenant. It is an act of submission.
26.9 “And he has brought us into this place (maqom), and has given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.”
Note the contrast with verse 6, ‘he (Jacob) went down into Egypt --- and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid on us hard bondage.’ Now they gratefully declare that ‘Yahweh has brought them into this place’ and has given them this land, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’, a land which contains all that a man could desire. So while Jacob had taken them into affliction and bondage and hard toil, Yahweh has brought them to a land flowing with milk and honey.
(To have brought any more detail into this statement would have been to wreck its stark impact. It precisely describes what is in mind as they at that stage look at their present condition and compare it with the past. This is not a statement of faith so much as a declaration of loyalty and gratitude).
Thus to the priest, the Overlord’s representative, they have now fully explained why they have come, in typical covenant fashion. It is in order to express how great has been their Overlord’s supreme goodness to them, which they want Him to know that they appreciate fully.
‘Place’ (maqom) has been regularly used of the place which Yahweh would choose. Here the same word is applied to the whole land. That too was chosen by Yahweh.
26.10 “And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground, which you, O Yahweh, have given me.” And you shall set it down before Yahweh your God, and worship before Yahweh your God.’
Then finally they get to the point of why they have now come. It is to pay tribute of the firstfruit of their ground which He had given them (to as it were pay their rent). At this point they then take up their basket of firstfruit, which the priest had previously waved before Yahweh and set down and which symbolises all their firstfruits, and ceremonially again set it down ‘before Yahweh’, (often spoken of in terms of ‘at the door of the tent of meeting’), and pay homage to Him in adoration and worship. Their submission is complete.
Others see the reference to setting down as simply a reminder of what had been done in verses 4-5.
This whole depiction of the ceremony is clearly abbreviated, and we can imagine the busyness of the actual scene when it took place. Many would be flooding in from all parts of the land with their baskets, each of which had to be ceremonially presented twice, once to the priest for him to wave before Yahweh, and then as the offering of the worshipper, possibly by a simple laying of a hand on it to identify himself with his gift, to be followed by his act of submission.
The second setting down would be a further stage in the ceremony coming later than verse 4. The setting down by the priest was a setting down before the altar by the priest as a preliminary gesture, certainly later after waving it before Yahweh (on the grounds that the firstfruits were the priests and had to be so dedicated), accompanied by the first brief statement, (the basket would be heavy). It would then be followed by the longer statement with the speaker picking up or laying his hand on his basket as he speaks the words of verse 10 and offers it with those words, setting it down again ‘before Yahweh’.
Note the change from plural to singular. Each individual family head first recited the history in terms of the whole nation and then makes his family’s personal offering.
26.11 ‘And you shall rejoice in all the good which Yahweh your God has given to you, and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the resident alien who is in the midst of you.’
To this Moses adds that they must then rejoice in all the good that Yahweh has given to them; to the family head and to the whole family, and, they must remember, to the Levite and resident alien that dwell among them. It is to be a time of rejoicing (compare 12.7, 12, 18). This rejoicing would include their feasting before Yahweh.
Special Tithing In The Third Year (26.12-15).
Here they solemnly declare ‘before Yahweh their God’ that they have fulfilled their obligations with regard to the third year tithe.
Analysis in the words of Moses:
Note that in ‘a’ they give their third year tithe so that all who are dependent on God’s provision may receive it within their cities and be filled and in the parallel they therefore ask that Yahweh will be equally generous to them. In ‘b’ they declare their positive obedience, to His commandments, and in the parallel declare that they have not disobeyed His commandments or done what is forbidden.
Every third year was to be the year of the third year tithe (14.28-29).
26.12 ‘When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the resident alien, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be filled.’
The setting aside of the tithe (the tenth) was a task to be carried out assiduously, and as, once it was set aside, it belonged to Yahweh and was ‘holy’, it would have to be stored carefully. Indeed if it was left with the tither it would cause the smaller farmer a real problem, both on how to store it and how to distribute it (not all had large barns and plenty of space). And while the larger homesteads might not find providing ‘clean’ storage such a problem, they might have equal problems of distribution. Seen all together the tithe would be considerable. It is quite clear that in fact there was no way in which all the tithes could have been distributed individually to the categories mentioned prior to the family heads going before Yahweh at the feast to make their declaration, unless it was handed over to the Levites. For those who were finally to receive it would not have the means of storing it, and could hardly eat it all at once. And the very task of distribution would be a considerable one.
This was especially so in view of the fact that it was ‘holy’ and would have to be kept in a clean place and only distributed by someone who was ritually clean. It is true that it might have been kept in special store under careful protection so that the Levite, the resident alien, the fatherless and the widow could come knocking on the door when they wanted food. But no woman would want that to happen while her man was away, and not all houses had servants. Indeed a few moments thought demonstrates that in such circumstances the tithe would become a great headache to many.
It is therefore very probable that we are to see ‘give it to the Levite’ as to be taken literally. And this would tie in with what had been done previously when the Levites did receive all the tithes. For the fact is that it is very probable that the Levite would supervise the setting aside and giving of the tithe. In 12.12, 18 the Levite is closely connected with the families with whom he feasts before Yahweh, and the emphasis on the fact that they were ‘not to forsake’ the Levite (12.19; 14.27) might not have been lest they genuinely overlook him, but may be seen as a reminder of the responsibility they still had towards the Levites as a whole with regard to tithes. They were not to forsake him as the one who supervised the tithes, (as well as partaking of them), by simple refusing to give tithes. In 14.27 the Levite ‘within their gates’ is not shown as included in the family party, yet he is still to be provided for from the tithes.
Indeed we have here a problem. Here we have the ‘holy’ tithes. But who is going to look after them? Not surely the struggling small farmer, himself finding it difficult to make a living for his family, with a tiny home. And the very fact that this is a three yearly tithe-giving must surely suggest that it was to be stored for use over most of that period, and yet we find the tither solemnly declaring that he no longer has it a few weeks later. A huge bonanza once every three years, followed by a long period of need was hardly the best way to cater for the needy, and hardly fits in with the idea of something that belongs to Yahweh. So who is going to oversee the distribution?
Nor can we doubt that tithing would have to be supervised. Many questions might arise as to what should be tithed, which required an expert answer, and it is doubtful if even Moses and the priests were so trusting that the giving of tithes went totally unsupervised, while God, who finally oversaw matters, knew too well the hearts of men. (Imagine a country where everyone paid 10% tax and everyone had to decide for themselves what the level of their income was that they should apply it to, without any supervision. We can imagine the result. Hidden actual gross national product 200 billion. Declared gross national product 100,000, therefore 10% tax would be ten thousand instead of twenty billion?). The clear answer to all these problems is the Levites. So in our view ‘shall give it to the Levite’, which we always find comes first in the list after the household, means, ‘as the trustee who will ensure that they are also passed on to the resident alien, the fatherless and the widow’. This was almost certainly their main holy occupation that paralleled and finally replaced their duties of bearing the Ark and the tabernacle.
26.13 ‘And you shall say before Yahweh your God, “I have put away the hallowed things out of my house, and also have given them to the Levite, and to the resident alien, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all your commandment which you have commanded me. I have not transgressed any of your commandments, nor have I forgotten them.”
For the tither was to go ‘before Yahweh’, that is, was to go up to the Sanctuary ‘to the door of the tent of meeting’, and there he had to declare that he had put away ‘the hallowed thing’ out of his house, and that none of it was any longer there. Where then had it all gone? ‘To the Levite’ and the others. It is doubtful whether in that time the resident aliens, fatherless and widows were around in such quantities that in a few weeks they could eat ten per cent of the country’s production. Thus it is clear that the vast majority of it went to the Levites, who would then not only partake of it themselves, but would store it in specially arranged clean places from where they would distribute it as needed over the next two or three years.
26.14 “I have not eaten of them in my mourning, nor have I put away of them, being unclean, nor given of them for the dead. I have listened to the voice of Yahweh my God. I have done according to all that you have commanded me.”
Having solemnly declared that he had dealt rightly with the holy tithe, he then declared what he had not done. Clearly these latter suggestions were seen as dangers which were sufficiently common that they had to be guarded against.
We have to remember in this respect that many of ‘the Israelites’ who were listening to Moses were foreigners from the mixed multitude (Exodus 12.38), who having been adopted by a tribe, were brought into the covenant at Sinai, and who would be circumcised with all the others at Gilgal (Joshua 5.2-9). If they had wished, and after the deliverance and Sinai most would surely desire to do so, they had been able to partake of the Passover in the wilderness and once in the land they could also do so if they were among the circumcised (Exodus 12.48-49; Numbers 9.14). But in spite of this, and there is no reason to doubt their genuineness, some of them had strange ideas. Note Leviticus 17.7 where some had been secretly sacrificing to he-goats in the wilderness. And we know that all had been willing to bow down to the molten calf (Exodus 32.1-6).
What then was being warned against? Eating the holy tithes in mourning, putting them away while unclean, and giving of them ‘for the dead’. The first, eating the holy tithes in mourning, may well refer to wakes (mourning feasts). A house in mourning, along with its inhabitants, was regarded as unclean because of its contact with death. It may well have been felt by some that holy tithes were very suitable for such a purpose, where many guests would gather, among whom might be Levites, the fatherless, widows and resident aliens. What better use than to give them to these latter at the wake? But this was forbidden because mourning was connected with death and some of those present would be unclean through contact with those who had touched the dead. It was not the kind of environment into which to introduce the holy tithes.
‘Putting them away while unclean’ was a declaration that great care had been taken, both in setting aside the tithes, and once the tithes were set aside for Yahweh, to ensure that they were only handled by people when they were ritually clean. It was a warning of the care that must be taken not to touch them while unclean, something much more difficult for the small farmer than for his larger neighbour who had a wider number of people to call on and better facilities.
‘Giving of them for the dead.’ This may refer to any number of superstitions connected with the dead. Perhaps some had set the holy tithes on the coffin or body robes that the dead might partake of their holiness. Perhaps some had left them out for the dead or for spirits whom they saw as also ‘holy’. But this would be to defile holy things. There were so many superstitions connected with the dead among so many peoples, no doubt genuinely held, that to identify the source of this one would be totally impossible. Indeed it may be intended to cover a number of superstitions. It would appear that such superstitions might have been fairly common among some Israelites, especially the women who were more prone to such things (it was they who seven hundred years later wept for Tammuz - Ezekiel 8.14). So the householder had to be able to swear that the holy tithes had never been used for any purpose connected with the dead while they were in his care.
26.15 “Look down from your holy habitation, from the heavens, and bless your people Israel, and the ground which you have given us, as you swore to our fathers, a land flowing with milk and honey.”
The declaration then ends in a prayer. At His command they have given liberally to those who were especially dependent on Yahweh, now they come in their dependence seeking His liberality. This prayer makes clear that while Yahweh was seen as dwelling among them in His tabernacle at the place which He had chosen, the Israelites were quite well aware that He also dwelt in ‘the heavens’. This was not to see Him as simply above the clouds, for the sky was also His creation. It was to see Him as beyond the sky, outside the worldly creation, in a place unknown to men where He dwelt with those to whom He had spoken in Genesis 1.26. Solomon would later call it the heaven of heavens (1 Kings 8.27).
And each one called on Him in His Heaven, to look down (compare Psalm 80.14; 85.11; Isaiah 63.15) on them and bless His people, and the ground (adamah) which He had given them, a land flowing with milk and honey, just as He had sworn to their fathers. They were crying for the opposite of the curse that had been put on the ground (adamah) in Genesis 3.17, because this was His land. Rather they wanted Him to bless it (blessing and cursing will shortly contrast with each other. See especially 28.8 and also the whole of 27.15-28.8), causing it to flourish and bring forth its increase.
The cry for Him to ‘look down’ would have brought to mind Genesis 11.5 where what men were doing was so insignificant that Yahweh had to ‘come down’ to see it. Here Yahweh does not need to come down. It is big enough for Him to see all, for they are His people and His land, and He dispenses His blessings from Heaven.
So in response to their tribute and their obedience to His covenant they looked to their divine Overlord to look on them with favour.
VII THE COVENANT CEREMONY (26.16-27.26).
The covenant having been fully outlined and declared, and the tribute having been offered, the covenant ceremony can now be prepared for.
Moses’ Final Summing Up .
Moses now closes his speech with a final exhortation. It had begun in chapter 5 with the reproclamation of the initial covenant, to be followed with detailed regulations, in a similar way to Exodus 20.1-23.33. But as we have seen this had been made by the writer into a larger covenant form commencing at 1.1. It will now be followed by the solemn recording of the covenant in the presence of witnesses (27.2-8) and then the blessings and cursings (27.11-28.68), closing with the colophon in 29.1 which was the end of the initial covenant record.
Analysis
Note that in ‘a’ the command is to be wholehearted in obeying the covenant, and in the parallel this will man that they are a holy people to Yahweh their God, as He has said that they will be. In ‘b’ the people have avouched Yahweh to be their God and in the parallel Yahweh has avouched that they will be His people. Both include their keeping of His commandments.
26.16 ‘This day Yahweh your God commands you to do these statutes and ordinances. You shall therefore keep and do them with all your heart, and with all your soul.’
On this solemn day all these commands, ‘the statutes and ordinances’, had been given to them through him by Yahweh. This phrase covered all aspects of Yahweh’s requirements. They were to keep them in their hearts and minds, and do them with all their heart and soul. This was to be their commitment to Yahweh, so that they may be revealed as His true people. But this had to include the Law that lay behind his speech in order for it to make sense.
Compare 5.1 and 12.1, the first of which introduces the proclamation of the covenant, and the second the commencement of the detailed regulations. This is the covenant within the covenant. But the final purpose of the covenant was an obedient people.
When we think of salvation as simply a means by which God gets us to Heaven we are like Israel when it saw the covenant as making them supreme. We are like children to whom the present glitter is everything. But as with His covenant, the purpose of His salvation is more than that. It is that we might be a holy people, walking in the Lord, whether on earth or in Heaven. That should be our delight, that we shall be like Him (1 John 3.2), that we should walk as children of light. To get to Heaven yes, but to get there as a holy people.
26.17 ‘You have avouched Yahweh this day to be your God, and that you would walk in his ways, and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and listen to his voice,’
Here the covenant oaths are being exchanged, following the pattern of treaties between great overlords and their subject people. Each make their avowal to the other in threefold terms. He points out that by their presence and response they had this day avouched for themselves that Yahweh was their God, and that they would walk in His ways.
‘Walking’ is a common description of doing God’s will and pleasure (5.33; 8.6; 10.12; 11.22; 13.4; 19.9; Genesis 5.24; 6.9; 17.1; 24.40; 48.15; Exodus 18.20; Leviticus 18.4; 26.3). It is the opposite of ‘walking contrary to Him’ (Leviticus 26.21-28). They had declared that they would ‘keep His statutes and His commandments and His ordinances’ (compare here 5.27; Exodus 24.3-8). They had declared that they would listen when He spoke.
26.18-19 ‘And Yahweh has avouched you this day to be a people for his own possession, as he has promised you, and that you should keep all his commandments, and to make you high above all nations that he has made, ‘in praise, and in name, and in honour’, and that you may be a holy people to Yahweh your God, as he has spoken.’
And Yahweh in His turn has avouched them as His true people, as His own treasured possession (compare 7.6; 14.2; 28.9-10; Exodus 19.5-6), as a holy people, totally set apart to Him, just as He had promised. He had further avouched them as those who must keep all His commandments. Here we have the picture of the true people of God, first chosen and made precious, and then in response required to walk in obedience.
The result will be that He will raise them high above all nations that He has made, ‘high in praise and name and honour’ (compare Jeremiah 13.11; 33.9, where it was the direct result of His saving work). But this was so that they would be revealed as a holy people to Yahweh their God in accordance with His words, truly set apart for Him, and revealing His essential holiness in their lives. We all want the praise, the name and the honour. What is often not so attractive is being a people who deserve it when it requires something from us.
They would ever delight in the fact that Yahweh had chosen them. They would rejoice at the thought of being raised high above all. What they found more difficult, and in the end refused, was to respond by walking in His ways and doing only His will. In other words for many of them their belief was external. It was about their own importance. It was not a living belief in the living God which had responded to Him in order to please Him and do His will. The result would be that they would lose it all. For trust and obedience are two side of the one response and must go together.
Chapter 27 The Future Recording and Sealing of the Covenant and The Twelvefold Cursings.
The declaration of the covenant and its stipulations now being completed, a ceremony is described in two parts, one which will be public acceptance of the covenant at the present time, and the other which would be a confirmation of it once they were in the land.
First the secular leaders of the people were to step forward to call on the people to obey Yahweh’s commandments, and demand its subsequent recording in the land, and then the religious leaders of the people were to step forward to inform Israel of its religious significance as revealing them as the people of Yahweh. The secular leaders would confirm the covenant by declaring their agreement along with Moses, and that once they entered Canaan this covenant was to be recorded on stones in the land. The religious leaders would do so by declaring that even at this point in time the covenant stood and renewed their position as the people of God. Moses then went on to proclaim the blessing and cursing which would accompany the covenant.
But why does this chapter come in before the blessing and cursings? The reason for it could only have been in order to indicate that chapters 27.11-28.68 were not to be written down as a part of those stipulations which were to be recorded, but were to be received as a verbal warning on top of them. This is the simple explanation of why this chapter is included here.
It should be noted that Chapter 27 is pivotal. It brings everything together. It caps chapters 12-26, arranging for a record of them to be written down, it connects up to 11.26-32, demonstrating that 5.1-11.32 are also within its remit, and it connects up with 12.5-6 illustrating the place which Yahweh has chosen, and it feeds on into chapter 28 where the blessings and cursing are pronounced in order to complete the covenant pattern. It is the cornerstone that holds all together.
For while it undoubtedly caps chapter 12-26 there can be no doubt that it also clearly takes up and expands on the thought in 11.26-32. There are a number of connections between them, so much so that 27.1b could almost literally continue on from 11.31-32 if what was between dropped out. But it is constructed in such a way as to make clear that this continuation is a taking up of 11.26-32 rather than a direct continuation of it. For 27.1b-2a are basically the same thoughts in reverse as 11.31-32, deliberately reintroducing the ideas in that section having first of all expounded what lay between. Add to this that the last reference to a place in 11.29 was to the setting up of the curse on Mount Ebal, and that this is now, in chapter 27, taken up in the setting up of stones on Mount Ebal to contain ‘the words of this Instruction’ (27.4), on a Mount Ebal which is ‘for the curse’ (27.13), and the connection is clear and emphatic. Consider also that in 11.29 the mention of Mount Ebal on which was the cursing, was preceded by the blessing on Mount Gerizim, while here in chapter 27 the covenant is to be written down on Mount Ebal (27.8) and the cursing pronounced (27.13, 15-26), and again it is to be preceded by the blessing on Mount Gerizim (27.12).
For verbal connections between the two consider for example the following. Israel are to ‘keep all the commandment which I command you this day’ (27.1). Compare for this 11.22, ‘this commandment which I command you’; along with verse 32, ‘all the statutes and the judgments which I set before you this day’, while 11.28 refers to ‘the curse if you will not listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God --- which I command you this day’. They are to ‘pass over the Jordan’ (27.2), compare this with 11.31, ‘pass over the Jordan’. In 11.20 Moses’ words were to be written on their doorposts and gates, here they are to be written initially on great stones (27.2-3) as a perpetual reminder. In 11.32 reference is made to ‘all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day’ which compares with ‘all the commandment which I command you this day’ (27.1). For the fact that ‘the commandment’ is the equivalent of ‘the statutes and judgments’ see 6.1.
There can therefore be no doubt that chapter 27 is a taking up and expanding of 11.22-32.
That having been said 12.1 also connects directly with 11.32. It is not therefore to be seen as an interpolation. It is rather that we are to see two strands coming from the one source, placed one after the other. 11.26-32 is first of all continued in 12-26 as far as explaining what the statutes and judgments are, and then expanded on in chapter 27 in order to complete the picture of the covenant ceremony. For 11.26-32 is incomplete by itself. The observant listener would be waiting for the fuller explanation and expansion of what 11.26-32 was all about, and it is found in this chapter.
But 12.5-6 is also be seen as in mind in 27.5-7. In 12.5-6 reference is made to ‘the place (maqom) which Yahweh your God shall choose’ (compare ‘the place’ (maqom) of Shechem (Genesis 12.6)), which was where they were to ‘bring your whole burnt offerings and your sacrifices -- and there you shall eat before Yahweh your God ’, while here in 27.5-7 they are to ‘build an altar to Yahweh -- and offer whole burnt offerings on it to Yahweh your God -- and shall sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat there’. Shechem is clearly one place which Yahweh their God has chosen. And the fact that the altar in 27.5-6 is spoken of in terms that remind us of Exodus 20.24-25 (‘of hewn stones’ on which no tool has been lifted) which was to be built ‘in every place where I record my name’, in other words in every place which Yahweh chose, and was where He would bless them, can only confirm the connection with chapter 12 where offerings and sacrifices were to be made at the place where He ‘put His name there’ and ‘caused His name to dwell there’ (12.11) and which He had chosen.
There can therefore be little real doubt that 27.1 is coming back in thought to, and amplifying on, 11.26-29, and 12.5-6, once the regulations have been expounded. For chapters 12-26 have certainly been necessary in order to amplify 11.32.
Deuteronomy 27 Parallels Exodus 24: The Confirming of the Sinai Covenant .
Chapter 27 also parallels features of Exodus 24, and is thus an essential part of completing the covenant, which would not be complete without it. Once they were in the land the record of this covenant was to be written down, as it was written down in Exodus 24.4, but this time they would enter it on the very rocks of the land, in Mount Ebal near Shechem. The land itself was to be the material on which the covenant was written. The covenant of Sinai was to be sealed in the land. And here they were to build an altar like the one described in Exodus 20.24-25, and offer on it peace offerings, and feast before Yahweh as their elders had done in Exodus 24.11. So the same general covenant pattern is being followed. At Sinai the ceremony had been the initial receiving of them as His holy people. Here at Shechem it is to be a receiving of them as His own people within the land that He has given them. It is a confirmation and renewal of the covenant of Sinai which had been clearly laid out in chapter 5. So chapter 27 is vital to the completing of the whole picture, and Deuteronomy 5-27 is an expansion on Exodus 20-24.
Shechem Was To Be The First ‘Place (Maqom) Which Yahweh Shall Choose’.
Whatever would follow in the future Shechem was at this stage to be the centre of their thinking. It was to ‘the place (maqom) of Shechem’ by ‘the oak of Moreh’ that Abraham had come when he first entered the land, and were he had received his first revelation in the land, and built his first altar to Yahweh (Genesis 12.6-7), and had received the first promise of the land (Genesis 12.7), and it was to Shechem that Jacob had come when he left Paddan-aram, and where he had purchased his first piece of land as a dwelling place, and had built an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel (Genesis 33.18-20). Shechem and the oak of Moreh thus had holy associations with possession of the land and a place which Yahweh had chosen.
As we have seen Moses had already taken up this idea in 11.29-30, for it was to be in the very mountains ‘beside the oaks of Moreh’ that Israel were to re-establish the covenant (the reference to blessing and cursing could only refer to a covenant ceremony). And now, the regulations of 12-26 having been proclaimed, 27.2-4 takes up where 11.32 left off. The cursing on Mount Ebal had been the last thing mentioned there (11.29) and that is now taken up here. In chapter 11 it had been a preliminary preparation, here it is a description of its more detailed fulfilment.
The centrality of the environs of Shechem to the making of the covenant had already been made clear in 11.26-32, having already been emphasised in 11.29-30, for Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal were two mountains either side of the plain where Shechem is situated. And it is confirmed by their being described as ‘beside the oaks of Moreh’ (11.30; compare Genesis 12.6), even though Shechem is not specifically mentioned. Add to this that the stress on keeping ‘all this commandment’ (11.22) in order to obtain blessing is stressed in 11.26-27 in connection with the Mountains, and it is very difficult to see Shechem and its environs as any other than a place which Yahweh has chosen to set His name there. And this is confirmed by the comparison between 12.5-6 and 27.5-7.
So in the last analysis chapter 27.1-28.68 must be seen as intended to be the great finale to 4.44 -28.68. Standing in the conquered territory of the two Amorite kings, which was evidence of Yahweh’s initial triumph on their behalf, Moses has declared ‘the Instruction that Moses set before the children of Israel (4.44)’ to ‘all Israel’ (5.1). Now he calls on the leaders of the nation to add their backing to what he has said, and they confirm together to all the people that they must keep these commandments and what must take place with regard to them once they enter the land. It is giving the whole people a focus point within the land, a focus point which will be achieved in Joshua 8.30-35.
So following Moses’ great speech, first the elders of the people came forward, and standing with Moses gave their backing to Moses’ final words as he, or their appointed leader at his behest, with due ceremony, commanded the recording of the covenant on stones of the land once they were in the land (27.1b-8). It was thus made quite clear that what Moses had declared had the full backing of all the leaders of Israel. It was not just he but they as a whole who were demanding the keeping and recording of the covenant.
Compare how the fathers of these same leaders had in 5.23-27 commissioned Moses to receive the word of Yahweh on their behalf with the promise that when he brought it they would hear it and do it. Here they were now keeping that promise and receiving that word from Moses and commending it to their people.
Then the Levitical priests stepped forward with ‘the Priest’ at their head and stood with Moses as he (or possibly Eliezer) proclaimed that Israel had that day, through the covenant, become the people of Yahweh their God in a renewed way and that they must therefore obey His voice and do all that He has commanded (27.9-11). It was thus made quite clear that these men, who were representatives of the people before Yahweh, all with one accord backed the covenant and required its fulfilment.
Then Moses finally declared ‘on that same day’, that on the day when the covenant was recorded at Shechem the people were to be divided up, six tribes to Mount Gerizim and six to Mount Ebal. At this point ‘the Levites’, probably to be seen as standing with the Ark in the valley, would then declare to them the twelve curses on secret sins, in order to bring home the seriousness of the covenant and exonerate the people as a whole from those secret sins. The number twelve connects these curses directly with the twelve tribes of Israel.
After this he goes on in 28.1-29.1 to expand on the ‘cursings’ of 27.15-26, (which would be for secret sins with the purpose of exonerating the people from those secret sins by their adding their ‘Amen’), by applying them to future open sins. He does this by explaining the choice for them all as a nation between blessing and cursing as given in detail in chapter 28.1- 29.1, which will be dependent on their open obedience or their open sins. This caps off the whole. The close connection between 4.44-26.19 and what follows here is thus further confirmed.
Moses and the Elders of Israel Call For The Witness to the Covenant To Be Set Up In Shechem (27.1-8).
The covenant having been outlined in detail ‘Moses and the elders of Israel’ now speak up. It is clear that Moses had arranged for them to come and join him at the end of his speech so as to support this final step. Whether Moses spoke at their head, or whether their spokesman spoke up on behalf of Moses and the other elders, is not said. What matters is that with regard to the point being made they were shown to be at one.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
Note in ‘a’ the commandment to keep ‘all the commandment’ (the covenant stipulations) and in the parallel it is to be written on the stones. In ‘b’ and its parallel we have two large sentences, the first commencing with ‘And it shall be on the day when you shall pass over the Jordan’, and the second commencing with ‘And it shall be, when you are passed over the Jordan’. The first deals with setting up the great stones and writing on them the Torah (Instruction, Law), and will be an indication that they have begun to take possession of the land which Yahweh has promised them, and the second with setting up ‘these stones’ and building by them an altar in order to offer up offerings and sacrifices so as to eat and rejoice before Yahweh their God in a sealing of the covenant (compare Exodus 24.9-11).
27.1 ‘And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandment which I command you this day.’
Moses’ speech to all Israel having been completed what followed directly involved ‘the elders of Israel’, including all their leading men and princes, along with Moses, with regard to those words. The intention was clearly to align the elders of Israel with all that Moses had said, for he was soon to pass on and he wanted them to feel a part of, and to be tied in with, the remaking of the covenant. They would be the ones who were responsible for ensuring the fulfilment of His words. He did not want there to be an ‘us’ and ‘them’ situation.
‘All the commandment’ refers to the statutes and ordinances (judgments) previously given (6.1; 8.1) from 5.1 onwards, and from 12.1 onwards, the commands given ‘on that day’. Israel were to keep them, holding on to them, remembering them and obeying them. And in order to assist them in this and to bring home the solemnity of his words, and of what he was requiring of them, he now commanded that all his words were to be written on rocks especially plastered to receive the writing, once they have entered the land. This was a technique regularly practised in Egypt.
(Incidentally there may be good reason to believe that at this point in time representatives have come from Shechem seeking to become one with the children of Israel on the grounds of their joint relationship resulting from Jacob’s previous sojourn in Shechem and ownership of land there, for once Israel did enter the land we never hear of any conquests having to be made at Shechem and Judges 8.33 specifically refers to ‘the stranger’ as being present at the covenant ceremony there).
‘Moses.’ The reference to Moses is in the third person. Does this then mean that it was written down by someone else? It is in fact very likely that Moses had arranged for his words to be recorded by a trustworthy scribe, or by Joshua himself, with himself confirming their accuracy, but it is not in fact required by the usage. For in writing an important document like this it would be quite reasonable for Moses to write of himself in the third person. It was a solemn covenant recorded for future generations. In such types of documents writers often speak of themselves in the third person.
The name of Moses occurs in this book in 1.1, 3, 5; 4.41, 44-46; 5.1; 27.1, 9, 11; 29.1, 2; 31.1, 7, 9, 10, 14 (twice), 16, 22, 24, 25, 30; 32.44, 45, 48; 33.1, 4; 34.1, 5, 7, 8, 9 twice, 10, 12. The main reason why he was not mentioned in the remainder is because they are claimed to be recordings of his speeches. But in 33.1, 4 we actually have an example of something claimed to be composed by Moses (33.1) which openly speaks of him in the third person (33.4), in such a way as anyone might easily speak of themselves. This thus demonstrates that he is said to have used such a method. There is nothing intrinsically unlikely therefore in Moses referring to himself in this way continually in a permanent covenant record.
Furthermore in 31.7, 14; 34.9 he is spoken of in conjunction with Joshua (compare Joshua alone in 31.3, 23; 32.44) who was also referred to in the third person. But on the same basis that does not necessarily mean that Joshua could not have written down much of Deuteronomy.
So while this third person usage may reflect the writing of another scribe (possibly even Eliezer the Priest), it does not necessarily do so. For writing in the third person could simply be a device used in order to ensure that future readers recognised who was in mind in what the documents said. Far too many writers have used this method in history in this way for this not to be accepted as a perfectly reasonable possibility.
More difficult for the idea that Moses wrote the book himself was the recording of his death in chapter 34 as a past event. But once it is accepted that Moses would almost certainly use a scribe, whether Joshua, Eliezer, or any other, in writing down what he wanted recorded, all that that indicates is that Moses did not always himself hold the pen. It says nothing about whether the words were mainly his. The scribe would naturally finish the book off with an account of his death when that death had been specifically spoken of as near in the heart of the record, indeed so near that it had to occur before the crossing of the Jordan (1.37-38; 3.25-28; 4.21-22; 31.2, 7-8, 27, 29; 32.48-52). It simply sealed what had been spoken about.
On the other hand the claim that most of Deuteronomy was based on the direct words of Moses is constant in the book. See 1.1, 5; 4.44-45; 5.1; 27.1, 9, 11; 29.1; 31.1, 9, 10; 31.22, 24, 30; 32.44-45; 33.1. Furthermore he is actually said to have written parts of it (31.9, 22, 24-26) and that in connection with it being regularly read before all Israel (31.10-13). That could mean ‘arranged to be written on the basis of his own words’, but it cannot mean that he had no connection with it at all. Its content is also written in such a way as to indicate that it was given in the words of Moses, and, in anybody’s language, ‘this instruction’ in 31. 9 must refer to at least the main speech in the book, if it means anything at all. See Joshua 8.35.
Future generations certainly saw it that way for they wrote of ‘the book of the Instruction (Torah - Law) of Moses’ (Joshua 8.31-32; 23.6; 1 Kings 2.3; 2 Kings 14.6; 23.25; 2 Chronicles 23.18 compare Judges 3.4; 1 Kings 8.9).
27.2 ‘And it shall be on the day when you (ye) shall pass over the Jordan to the land which Yahweh your (thy) God gives you (thee), that you (thou) shall set yourself (thee) up great stones, and plaster them with plaster.’
‘On the day’ does not literally mean within that twenty four hour period, but was using yom in its other significance as a period of time. We could therefore translate, ‘at the time when’. They must do it as soon as possible after entry.
In the parallel in verses 4-8 this is expanded on by declaring again that the stones must be set up, but this time the connection is with the completion of the covenant ceremony, and the site where it is to be done is named. Thus it refers to the covenant sacrifices which will be eaten before Yahweh. The repetition, which is typical of ancient writings which loved repetition, by this means puts extra stress on the most important point, the public display of the covenant actually written on the land of their possession, and draws special attention to it, while linking it with both the new possession of the land (2-3) and the renewed covenant (4-8).
27.3 ‘And you (thou) shall write on them all the words of this instruction (law), when you (thou) are passed over, that you (thou) may go in to the land which Yahweh your God gives you (thee), a land flowing with milk and honey, as Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has promised you (thee).’
Once they had ‘passed over’ into the land, then Israel, through their representatives, were to write on the stones at Shechem ‘all the words of this instruction (law)’. Speaking on the basis of the book itself without any bias, that would surely signify at least 12-26, and probably 5.1-26.19, but it may also be intended to include the whole of the Law of which his speech was a popular survey, for his speech omits too much for it to be seen as the whole Law. The writing on the stones would confirm the covenant in the land so that they could then confidently go in and possess it on the basis of the promise that Yahweh had made to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He also reminded them of the quality of what Yahweh was giving them. It was a land ‘flowing with milk and honey’ (compare 6.3; 11.9; 26.9, 15; 31.20). It will be noticed that this promise is spread evenly over the different parts of the covenant. The kingdom of God could be theirs on the basis of His love and faithfulness to the fathers. But, as has been and will be pointed out, from that free gift had to spring obedience. It was a covenant gift. Without obedience the gift would be forfeit.
27.4 ‘And it shall be, when you (ye) are passed over the Jordan, that you (ye) shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and you (thou) shall plaster them with plaster.’
This repetition is a regular feature of the Pentateuch, and here has the purpose of emphasising the tow purposes in setting up the stones. Such repetition was also a regular feature of other ancient literature. It confirmed to the hearer what had just been said so that it would become fixed in his mind and he would remember it. So Moses partly repeats what he had said, but with the additional information that it was to be on Mount Ebal, and then he adds the requirement of sealing the covenant with offerings and sacrifices what follows and a covenant feast. All that he described was to be done as soon as possible after passing over the Jordan.
It may be asked why the Instruction was to be recorded on Mount Ebal, and not Mount Gerizim. This was partly because it was there that the sacrifices were to be offered, which themselves warned of the threat of death to any who broke the covenant. That was hardly suitable for the Mount of blessing. But added to this was the fact that the curses on secret sins were an essential part of the covenant. While the blessings were to result from keeping the covenant, that was the result of, rather than part of the essential nature of, the covenant. The blessings did not come because the covenant was kept, for they were already promised, rather the keeping of the covenant simply maintained their flow, which primarily resulted from God’s graciousness. On the other hand the cursings in chapter 27 actually directly affected the covenant. Disobedience directly affected the covenant itself. The curses came to fruition because of the disobedience. They had therefore to be accepted as a part of the covenant.
27.5-7 ‘And there you (thou) shall build an altar to Yahweh your God, an altar of stones. You shall lift up no iron on them. You shall build the altar of Yahweh your God of unhewn stones, and you shall offer whole burnt offerings on it to Yahweh your God, And you shall sacrifice peace offerings, and shall eat there, and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God.’
(Up to verse 10 it is now all ‘thou, thee’).
On Mount Ebal they were to set up an altar to Yahweh their God. It had to be an altar of stones on which no tool of man had come, for it must be of unhewn stones (compare Exodus 20.24-25) And no iron must have touched it. This may be because the main iron known was that ‘from the sky’ in the form of meteorites, which others saw as from the gods, or it may refer to rare imported iron tools which were therefore ‘foreign’. Either way the stones must not be touched by iron in any way. Interestingly the remains of an ancient rough stone altar dating from around the time of Joshua have been discovered on Mount Ebal.
Offerings and sacrifices were regularly offered to confirm a covenant. At Mari in the 18th century BC when they intended to make a covenant they spoke of ‘killing an ass’. All knew what that signified. They were going to prepare a covenant sealed in blood. That is why the Old Testament often speaks of ‘cutting a covenant’. And similar practises were widespread. It was also common for part of the sacrifice to be offered up and part to be eaten by the participants. Thus the purposes of the whole burnt offerings, which were offerings of dedication and tribute, and the peace sacrifices which would supply the meat for the covenant feast, were to be for the sealing of the covenant (compare Exodus 24.5).
We are not actually told that the Ark (at least) was to be present at this ceremony but it is hardly conceivable that it was not. The Ark was the central point of their focus on God and was portable. It could hardly not be there. Its presence would be just assumed (compare Joshua 8.30-35). As always in Deuteronomy Moses ignores the priests’ part.
The setting up of the stones and the offering of the offerings and sacrifices are parallel to the acceptance of the covenant in Exodus 24, where twelve stone pillars were set up and whole burnt offerings and peace offerings were also offered. There too the blood was applied as a warning of what would happen to those who broke the covenant.
27.8 ‘And you shall write on the stones all the words of this instruction (law) very plainly (literally ‘engraving well’).’
The purpose of the preparation of the stone was now repeated, stressing its importance. It was that ‘all the words of this Instruction’ might be plainly written on them and might be ‘well engraved’.
We do not know whether at this point the people made a response (see Exodus 24.3), for due to the pending death of Moses this ceremony was a strange one, for it was an acting out beforehand of the actual ceremony that would later take place, putting firmly behind it the authority if Moses. But that was not to lessen its significance, for as all the people stood there it would be powerful confirmation of the certainty that they would successfully enter the land and reach Shechem, most only being aware that that was somewhere in the land and sacred because of its association with Abraham and Jacob, and was somewhere where they already owned land as descendants of Jacob.
The Priests As The People’s Representatives Before Yahweh Confirm the Covenant (27.9-26).
The levitical priests had their own special responsibility for the fulfilment of the instruction of Yahweh. They with the appointed judges were the final court of appeal (17.9, 18; 21.5; 24.8). And they represented the people before Yahweh. They are thus called on to substantiate Yahweh’s word to His people. Then when the time comes that the people are gathered on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal as instructed, the Levites’ part will be to pronounce the cursing on the secret sins of Israel on behalf of all the people.
Analysis:
Note how in ‘a’ the Levites declare that Israel have become the people of Yahweh through the covenant pronounced by Moses on that very day, even prior to the covenant ceremony at Shechem. In the parallel this is confirmed at Shechem by the renouncing of the secret sins. In ‘b’ six tribes are to take their stance on Mount Gerizim, the mountain of blessing, and in the parallel six are to stand on the mountain of cursing.
27.9 ‘And Moses and the priests the Levites spoke to all Israel, saying, “Keep silence, and listen, O Israel. This day you are become the people of Yahweh your God.” ’
The levitical priests were then called to stand with Moses and confirm the importance of the covenant that Moses has just declared. They were witnesses to the truth of what he had said. Their combined testimony was clear. It was that the people might be silent and consider what had happened. In hearing and receiving that covenant they had ‘become the people of Yahweh your God’ by renewal. It had happened to their fathers at Sinai, now it had fully happened to them (5.3). As they stood on the verge of the land Yahweh had confirmed that they were His own people. The call to silence was in order to bring home the seriousness of the matter (see Ecclesiastes 5.2 (5.1 in Hebrew). Compare Nehemiah 8.11; Zephaniah 1.7; Zechariah 2.13; Habakkuk 2.20; Revelation 8.1).
27.10 “You shall therefore obey the voice of Yahweh your God, and do his commandments and his statutes, which I command you this day.”
But while this was a great blessing it also conveyed on them a great responsibility. They could not be His people and yet disobey Him. They must therefore obey His voice and do His commandments and statutes as outlined by Moses that day. And that involved keeping all the instruction of which that was an aspect.
This confirmation by the priests was of the utmost importance, for it made them feel a part of what Moses was doing and wedded them to ensuring the final carrying of it through. For the result was that it was now not just a covenant declared by Moses, but one on which both secular leaders and levitical priests had put their seal. They would no doubt repeat the words when the covenant ceremony could finally take place at Shechem.
Moses Describes How The Covenant Ceremony Will Proceed Once They Have Reached Shechem (27.11-26).
On that same day as he had spoken all the words from 5.1 onwards and given instructions for the recording of them, and had with the Levites made this final pronouncement Moses describes how the covenant ceremony must proceed once they are in the land. This is not just a dress rehearsal. Moses want to feel a part of the making of this covenant and is here trying to enter into it as much as he can. It is a great blow to him that he will not be able to be there.
These are not general cursings related to the covenant. Those come in chapter 28. Here he lists twelve possible examples of secret breaches which if not cultically dealt with could bring judgment on Israel, and he then calls on all Israel to give their assent to Yahweh’s cursing of these secret breaches of the covenant. By their assent to the cursing of them Israel would then relieve themselves from the responsibility for them. The whole nation could then not be blamed for surreptitious treaty breaking done in secret. Then in chapter 28 he will proclaim the general blessings and cursings on all sin, whether secret or otherwise, from which they cannot relieve themselves of the responsibility.
27.11 ‘And Moses charged the people the same day, saying,’
The stress is on the fact that this was said ‘on the same day’. We have already noted that the altar was to be set up on Mount Ebal, the mountain of the cursings, and that the offerings and sacrifices were to be made there. Thus it should not surprise us that special cursings on secret disobedience in respect of detailed aspects of the covenant should now be given. The very purpose of the offerings and sacrifices was to indicate that those who participated in the covenant would die such a death if they seriously breached the covenant, and the twelvefold cursing on them, simply emphasises that message.
These sins would appear to be specifically connected with secrecy, for ‘in secret’ is stressed in verses 15 and 24, sins which might have been openly done, while the other sins would normally be done in secret. Thus the point will be to make known that even if the judges know nothing of them, the curse of Yahweh will rest on the perpetrators, but that Israel as a whole could be exonerated if they gave consent to their cursing. As long as they repudiated them they would not be blamed for secret breaches of which they knew nothing. The number twelve is clearly connected with the number of the twelve tribes emphasising that the curses would apply to each and all if they sinned in secret.
27.12 ‘These shall stand on mount Gerizim to bless the people, when you (ye) are passed over the Jordan; Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Joseph, and Benjamin.’
When they arrived at Shechem half the tribes were to stand on Mount Gerizim. The tribes named are those connected with Leah’s eldest sons (apart from Reuben), and with Rachel’s own children. Reuben are possibly to be excluded because he had lost his position as the firstborn by taking his father’s concubine (Genesis 35.22). Thus it might have been thought that being one who was already subject to the curse (verse 20) he could not be on the mount of blessing. Or it may be because the relationship of his tribe to that of Gad had become so close (they dwelt together in Transjordan) that it was felt more suitable for them to stand together. Or it may be so that the tribe of Reuben might, as the descendants of the firstborn, add weight to the tribes on Mount Ebal (as representing the eldest wife).
Note that Levi was also among the tribes standing on the mountains. This was necessarily so as they may have among them those who had committed secret sins. Thus ‘the Levites’ who were actually to take part in the ceremony were probably those who bore the Ark, or alternatively the levitical priests, or both.
It is not quite clear what the function ‘to bless the people’ was, but it is clear that Mount Gerizim was seen as the mountain of blessing. It would seem that standing symbolically on that mountain indicated the recognition of all the blessings that Yahweh had promised Israel, which they would receive if they were obedient to the covenant. They did not need to be spelled out.
Thus the two mountains indicated the possibility of either blessing or cursing for the whole of Israel, or for any in Israel who deserved it, and their standing on Mount Gerizim was seen as indicating future blessing, simply because they were not on the mountain of the curse. It was indicating a half and half chance of blessing and cursing, depending on the response of Israel to the covenant in future. There was no need for any slaughtering or shedding of blood here. That would only be required when the covenant was broken. Symbolically they were at this point being seen as not having done any of the things describes in what follows. They were to be seen as in the clear. Their standing was to be seen as what might be, if Israel remained obedient.
27.13 ‘And these shall stand on mount Ebal for (or ‘upon’) the curse; Reuben, Gad, and Asher, and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.’
The remainder of the tribes were to stand on Mount Ebal ‘for the curse’. They were to be here, where the covenant animals were to be symbolically slaughtered, for the cursings to be directed at them. This presented the possible alternative that could face Israel, and individual Israelites, that of cursing. It was especially suitable that Reuben was here for he had committed an accursed sin (Genesis 35.22).
27.14 ‘And the Levites shall answer, and say to all the men of Israel with a loud voice,’
Then ‘the Levites’ were to speak up and express on behalf of Israel cursings on those who engaged in secret sins, cursings to which all of Israel were to concur. In spite of being divided up all were to be involved together. ‘The Levites’ might indicate certain levitical priests selected for the task, or it may indicate the Levites who had actually borne the Ark there, thus symbolising them as speaking on behalf of the One Whose Ark it was. If borne in peace and covered, the Ark could be carried by its normal Levite bearers (Numbers 3.30-31). If borne in war and possibly uncovered it would be borne by levitical priests. 31.9 might suggest that at this time it would be borne by the levitical priests as this would be after the holy war had begun.
These curses are specific to individuals and not general. The general blessings and curses for open sin follow in chapter 28. But these are a warning that God sees all that takes place in secret and will deal with each accordingly. They are intended to deal with secret sins among the children of Israel to prevent the guilt of them falling on all of them. By their signifying their agreement to Yahweh’s cursing of those who do such things they will be taking His side against them and relieving themselves of the guilt of such hidden sins. Note the use of the third person ‘he’ in the cursings. The curse is restricted to such people. In chapter 28 both blessings and cursings are directed at ‘you’ (thou). There all are involved.
27.15 “Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to Yahweh, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret.” And all the people shall answer and say, “Amen.”
The first crime against Yahweh is the setting up in secret of a graven (wood) or molten (metal) image in order for it to be used in worship. Such, which would be merely the work of a craftsman, and a man-made thing (compare Isaiah 44.9-17; Jeremiah 10.3-5), would be an abomination to Yahweh whatever it represented. Whoever did such a thing would be cursed. All the people were then to signify their agreement by saying ‘Amen’.
Had the sin been carried out in the open that man should be put to death thus removing the guilt from Israel, but because it would be in secret the people have agreed that Yahweh is in the right to carry out his own sentence.
27.16 “Cursed be he who sets light by (humiliates) his father or his mother.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The second crime against Yahweh is that of showing arrogance to the authority of father and mother in the household, and treating them lightly, even humiliating them (compare 21.18-21; Exodus 21.15; Leviticus 20.9; Ezekiel 22.7). The idea here is of deliberately going against all their teaching as they sought to pass on to them the truths of Yahweh. Such a person may not be prosecuted (21.18-21), either because of family love or because they have not quite gone that far, for if they were they would be put to death. But even though it is in secret Yahweh will see and know. Again such behaviour is to be cursed, and all the people shall say ‘Amen’.
27.17 “Cursed be he who removes his neighbour’s landmark.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The third crime against Yahweh is that of removing a neighbour’s landmark. The landmark makes clear what land belongs to whom. It may even have been a landmark which contained on it evidence of ownership. And its removal will make difficult the restoration of the land in the year of Yubile. The idea is that it is done falsely, either in the dark, or by malicious force. This is a stealing of the land that has been given to someone by Yahweh (compare 19.14). It is a crime against Yahweh. Even if it is not detected by man it will be punished. Again such action is cursed. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’. Such crimes were a constant theme in the prophets for it was not possible to add land to land without removing boundary markers (Isaiah 5.8; Micah 2.2), for that was removing boundaries.
27.18 “Cursed be he who makes the blind to wander out of the way.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The fourth crime against Yahweh is to do with the weak and disabled. They are Yahweh’s special concern for they cannot see to themselves. It is illustrated by the idea of misleading the blind. Those who do this offend specifically against the fear of God, against Yahweh (Leviticus 19.14). It may not be seen by others, but Yahweh will see. And such a person will be cursed. This is again followed by the agreement of all in saying, ‘Amen’.
27.19 “Cursed be he who wrests the justice due to the resident alien, fatherless, and widow.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The fifth crime against Yahweh is to do with treating unjustly those who are defenceless and therefore also Yahweh’s special concern. These are the resident alien, the fatherless and the widow. It is Yahweh Who brings about justice for such, and Who loves them (10.18). Compare Exodus 22.21-24 where Yahweh’s swift response is described. This crime may be kept well hidden, but the perpetrator can be sure that Yahweh will know. Again the cursing is assented to by all.
27.20 “Cursed be he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
These next four crimes against Yahweh (the sixth to the ninth) are to do with sexual relationships which are contrary to Yahweh’s will. They all carry the death penalty (see Leviticus 20.11, 14, 15, 17). All these are likely to be carried out in secret and not come to public knowledge. The guilt will therefore rest on the whole nation. Therefore the guilt from them must be expunged from Israel by agreeing to the curse on them.
The sixth is that of a son who seeks to usurp his father’s place by having sexual relationships with one of his father’s wives. He will have shamed his father who has been set in authority over him by Yahweh, by laying bare the nakedness of his wife. Compare 22.30; Leviticus 18.8 and see 2 Samuel 16.21-22; 20.3 with 15.16. This would be true even if it was after the father’s death, and he was rather trying to gain an advantage over his brothers. While it may not be known, Yahweh will know, and he will be cursed. Again the cursing is assented to by all.
27.21 “Cursed be he who lies with any manner of beast.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The seventh is that of someone who has sexual relations with a beast. Such an act involves being made one with the beast and thus results in dishonouring the image of Yahweh in man. It is to degrade man to being but a beast causing ‘confusion’ in the levels of creation (Leviticus 18.23). The perpetrator sins against Yahweh’s image in man and although possibly unknown to any, will be under God’s curse. Again the cursing is assented to by all.
27.22 “Cursed be he who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The eighth is that of one who has sexual relations with his own sister or half-sister (Leviticus 18.9). This was in fact previously not seen as sinful for Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20.12). It is, however, now forbidden, probably mainly in order to protect women in a family from harassment or it may have been due to an observed likelihood of birth defects in the resulting children. Also. Again it is cursed, and the curse is assented to by all.
27.23 “Cursed be he who lies with his mother-in-law.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The ninth is that of a man who has sexual relations with his mother-in-law. This is likely to cause unease, unpleasantness and even enmity between mother and daughter, something to be totally rejected, and will distort family relationships in other spheres. For example if the mother-in-law has another daughter she will be sister to the man’s wife, and yet his daughter. This too is cursed, a curse agreed to by all the people.
27.24 “Cursed be he who smites his neighbour in secret.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The tenth crime against Yahweh is that of smiting a neighbour in secret, the point being that by doing it in secret he hopes to get away with it because of lack of proof (compare Exodus 21.12). The word ‘smiting’ includes the idea of killing (see 21.1). Had the crime been known he would suffer the death penalty, thus taking away the guilt from Israel. But he is assured that even if he is not found out Yahweh will know, and he will be cursed. And all the people will say, ‘Amen’.
27.25 “Cursed be he who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The eleventh crime against Yahweh is that of taking a secret bribe to kill an innocent person, again a crime which would receive the death penalty (compare Exodus 23.7-8). That too is to be cursed, and all the people will say. ‘Amen’.
27.26 “Cursed be he who confirms not the words of this law to do them.” And all the people shall say, “Amen.”
The twelfth crime against Yahweh is that of rejecting the covenant, of refusing to confirm it. If the secrecy motif is in mind here as well then the idea is of those who do it secretly. Outwardly he accepts it but inwardly he rejects it. This too will result in cursing. And all the people will say, ‘Amen’.
Alternately this may signify ‘confirms not the words of this law by doing them’ (compare its use by Paul in Galatians 3.10). In that case it would be a curse against all high handed sin done in secret, the penalty for which would have been death (Numbers 15.30).
The importance in this list of sins due for cursing is not only in dissuading men from doing them, but in order to cover the whole of Israel against the consequences of such secret sins on themselves. By agreeing and publicly declaring their agreement with the fact that the perpetrators should be cursed by Yahweh they have relieved themselves from the burden of guilt arising from them, both in the past and in the future for they have taken Yahweh’s side against them. This is the essence of these cursings. That is why there is no alternative in respect of blessings. Israel are not at this time calling for a curse on themselves, but on those who have done these secret sins. As they renew the covenant they are separating themselves from such secret sinners. The general blessings and cursings will now follow.
There is for us an important lesson in these cursings for they remind us that God is not mocked. We are just as much required to obey God’s instruction as they were.
VIII BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE COVENANT (28.1-29.1).
Chapter 28 Covenant Blessings and Cursings.
It should be noted that verse 1 is not an invitation to enter into covenant. The offer of the covenant had already been made by Yahweh out of His lovingkindness, and had been accepted by Israel in Exodus 24, as confirmed in the last chapter, Deuteronomy 27. This is a promise and a warning subsequent to the covenant concerning the consequence of being faithful to their Overlord, or of rebelling against Him. It parallels the cursing and blessing clauses in the 2nd Millennium BC Hittite treaty covenants, and even more the blessings and cursings in the 2nd Millennium law codes. The 1st Millennium treaties do not tend to have blessings clauses.
But there is one major difference between this covenant and other treaties. In other treaties outside parties (the gods) are called on to ensure the fulfilling of the treaty, but here Yahweh Himself will enforce His own covenant. No outside help is needed.
The consequence of the covenant is that if they respond to it and love Him and serve Him and are obedient to His commandments, Yahweh will bless them in a multitude of ways. That is what the tribes standing on Mount Gerizim represented (27.12). But if they turn away from Him and do not keep His commandment they will be horribly cursed. That is what the tribes standing on Mount Ebal represented (27.13). The length of the cursings considerably outweighs the blessing. This was normal in Ancient Near Eastern treaties.
‘Thee, thou’ is used all through this chapter, except where indicated, in order to indicate that the words are spoken to the nation as a whole and to every individual in it.
The Blessings Which Will Result From Continuing Faithfully In The Covenant (28.1-14).
The basic premise here is that they will :
The net result will be great blessing as outlined below. For the sphere of the blessings, given to them by the graciousness of Yahweh in accordance with His promises to their fathers, is the covenant, and those who would enjoy them must walk in it.
Analysis mainly based on the words of Moses, but with some summary:
In ‘a’ if they will listen diligently to the voice of Yahweh their God, to observe to do all His commandments which Moses commands them this day (He will bless them), and in the parallel if they will listen to the commandments of Yahweh their your God, which Moses commands them this day, to observe and to do them, (then He will exalt them). In ‘b’ Yahweh their God will set them on high above all the nations of the earth, and in the parallel Yahweh will make them the head, and not the tail, and they will be above only, and they will not be beneath. In ‘c’ all these blessings shall come on them, and overtake them, if they will listen to the voice of Yahweh their God, and in the parallel this will happen for Yahweh will open to them His good treasure the heavens, to give the rain of their land in its season, and to bless all the work of their hand: and they will lend to many nations, and will not borrow.
In ‘d’ the great blessings that will come are outlined including the fruit of the body, the fruit of the land and the fruit of the cattle, and in the parallel Yahweh will give them an excess of plenty including the fruit of their body, and the fruit of their cattle, and the fruit of their ground, in the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers to give them. In ‘e’ Yahweh will cause their enemies who rise up against them to be smitten before them, they will come out against them one way, and will flee before them seven ways, and in the parallel all the peoples of the earth will see that they are called by the name of Yahweh, and will be afraid of them. In ‘f’ Yahweh will command the blessing on them in their barns, and in all that they put their hand to, and He will bless them in the land which Yahweh their God gives them, and in the parallel Yahweh will establish them for a holy people to Himself, as He has sworn to them, as long as they will keep the commandments of Yahweh their God, and walk in His ways.
28.1 ‘And it shall come about that, if you will listen diligently to the voice of Yahweh your God, to observe to do all his commandments which I command you this day, Yahweh your God will set you on high above all the nations of the earth.’
The result of listening diligently to the voice of Yahweh, revealed in their keeping all of His commandments as represented by Moses’ current speech, is that He will set Israel on high above all the nations of the earth (compare 26.19). This was what Yahweh had avouched that He would do for them, and He will do it. Note how this connects with the final words in 26.19. This is the continuation of the theme.
This being set on high would be indicated by a number of things. Firstly by the multitude of natural blessings that they would receive (verses 3-6, 11-12; 7.13; 11.11-12, 14-15; 15.8-9; ). Secondly by the great security that they would enjoy (verses 7, 13, compare 6.19; 15.6). And thirdly by their material prosperity (verses 8, 12, compare 8.18; 15.6).
They would be set above all the nations of the earth, a promise which is a preparation for the Messianic promises that will arise later (Psalm 2.8). It will be fulfilled in His people when they as the true Israel are raised with Christ and share His throne (Revelation 3.21).
But how does all this apply to us? We will not enter the land, we will enter the better land, the city whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11.10), for if we are His we have already entered under the Kingly Rule of God. The blessings therefore that come to us through obedience are related to His Kingly Rule. To us He promises spiritual blessing and spiritual prosperity. Not for us the desire for physical land and wealth, but a seeking first His kingship and His righteousness. Then all things will be added to us (Matthew 6.33).
28.2 ‘And all these blessings shall come on you, and overtake you, if you shall listen to the voice of Yahweh your God.’
And all this they would enjoy as long as they listened to the voice of Yahweh their God. For these things were all a part of the covenant. The blessings are then declared in depth. Note that there are six blessings. Three is the number of completeness, and six is three intensified. Furthermore there were six tribes on the Mount of blessing representing the whole of Israel who would be blessed, representing the covenant keepers (27.12).
28.3-6 These words in poetic prose are emphasised in more abbreviated form in their parallel verse, verse 11. The blessings relate to the fruitfulness of the womb, the fruitfulness of the ground, and the fruitfulness of their flocks and herds, and the blessing indicates the underlying activity of Yahweh in all that they do. They will be blessed in both city and countryside, in basket and kneadingtrough, (a bowl for making dough), thus they will be blessed in their own abundant offspring (city) and in the abundant offspring of cattle (countryside), and in abundant fruits (basket) and grain (kneading-trough). They will be blessed in all their going out and in, in other words they will be successful both in their ‘goings out and in’ in international affairs and in all aspects of their daily lives. Compare especially 7.13-15 for all these. These are the fruit of the covenant.
The above arrangement reveals an interesting pattern. ‘The fruit of your ground’ and ‘the fruit of your beasts’ inverts to produce ‘the increase of your cattle and the young of your flock’ and ‘your basket and your kneading-trough.’ ‘Come in’ and ‘go out’ then parallel ‘in the city’ and ‘in the field’. The problem is then that ‘the fruit of your body’ seems to stand on its own. It does, however, relate to being blessed in the city. But the reference to dual aspects in lines 5 and 6 had to result in one parallel dropping out if the eight line pattern was to be maintained.
28.7 ‘Yahweh will cause your enemies who rise up against you to be smitten before you, they shall come out against you one way, and shall flee before you seven ways.’
Yahweh’s protecting hand will also be on them. Their enemies will be smitten before them, for He will fight alongside them. The enemy may march boldly up in full confidence, but in the end they will flee in many directions (compare 7.20). In the parallel all the people will see that they are called by the name of Yahweh and will be afraid (verse 10).
28.8 ‘Yahweh will command the blessing on you in your barns, and in all that you put your hand to, and he will bless you in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.’
The blessing will also include crops and fruits sufficient to store so that their barns will be full and overflowing. Indeed whatever they put their hand to will prosper, both in agriculture and business. For they will be blessed in every way in the land which Yahweh their God has given them. This blessing is not a reward. It is a fruit of their relationship with Him.
28.9-10 ‘Yahweh will establish you for a holy people to himself, as he has sworn to you, if (as long as) you will keep the commandments of Yahweh your God, and walk in his ways. And all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of Yahweh, and they shall be afraid of you.’
As they continue to keep the covenant and walk in His ways He will establish them as a holy people for Himself, a people watched over, cared for, protected and loved because they are separated to Him. And the whole world will see that they bear His name, as someone might bear the name of a great king, and they will be afraid of them, that is, they will revere them and look up to them because of Whose they are. So will they be a testimony to the name of Yahweh. Compare for the whole idea of this verse 7.6-8. See also 19.9; 26.17.
28.11 ‘And Yahweh will make you plenteous for good (give you an excess of plenty), in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, in the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers to give you.’
This parallels the poem in verses 3-6. They will be blessed in the good land that He has given them, they will ‘have an excess of plenty’, because He swore to their fathers that He would so bless them, and they will produce abundantly, in their own offspring (the fruit of their body), in the offspring of their flocks and herds and in all their produce. Notice that the reference to their fathers is a further reminder that all this comes to them not because of what they do, but for the fathers’ sakes. What they do is simply the fruit of it.
28.12 ‘Yahweh will open to you his good treasure the heavens, to give the rain of your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand: and you will lend to many nations, and you will not borrow.’
Yahweh will open the treasure house of the heavens so that rain will fall abundantly in its season (compare 11.11-12; Psalm 104.13). Thus all the work of their hand will be blessed, so much so that they will become wealthy and lenders to the nations, and will not need to borrow (15.6). The picture is one of overwhelming prosperity and wellbeing.
Note that the treasure house of the heavens is under His control. There will be no need for them to look anywhere else. The Baal myths at Ugarit picture Baal as having a palace in the heavens through the windows of which he poured water on the earth. But here it is made clear that that is not so. They come from Yahweh’s treasure house. But the parallel made clear that it would be because they listened to His voice (verse 3).
28.13 ‘And Yahweh will make you the head, and not the tail, and you will be above only, and you will not be beneath, if you will listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God, which I command you this day, to observe and to do them,’
As long as they listen to Yahweh’s commandments, and observe them and do them, they will always be at the head among the nations (verse 12), and never at the tail. None will be above them, for they will rather always be ranked above others. In the parallel in verse 2 they will be set on high above all the nations of the earth. This is the natural position for those who walk with the One Who is over all things.
28.14 ‘And shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you (ye) this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.’
But all will depend on their not turning aside from any of His words as given by Moses, neither to the right hand nor to the left, and on their not going after other gods to serve them.
For us the same blessings are offered under the Kingly Rule of God. Our enemies will not stand against us, our lives will be fruitful, and He will provide all that we need. But above all we will be His holy people through whom He can fulfil His purposes so that people will know that we are called by His name.
The Cursings That Will Result If They Are Not Faithful To The Covenant (28.15-68).
But once they wander outside the sphere of the covenant only cursings can await them. They will have put themselves in the same place as that already taken by those whom they had cursed in 27.15-26. Those examples were but samples of a wider Law, a Law which they would now have broken. Thus they have by their ‘Amen’ themselves acknowledged that it will be right for Yahweh to curse them. And the cursing will be terrible. Great privileges renounced can only produce great judgments.
Attempts have been made to parallel these curses with those in various treaty forms which have been discovered, but while there is general resemblance none parallel exactly and all that can really be said is that they all share a common pattern. Moses would have seen many examples of such treaties in his youth.
The First Series of Curses (28.15-46).
There now follows a series of five sixfold curses, the sixfold curses paralleling the six tribes on the Mount of cursing. Whereas the sixfold blessing was limited to one, for God’s blessing is total, the sixfold curses are multiplied. It is possible to discern seven sets of sixfold curses in all in what follows (two in the second series). This multiplying of curses as against blessings follows the pattern in ancient treaties and law codes. For this whole section compare Leviticus 26.14-39.
Analysis based on the words of Moses.
Note that in ‘a’ and parallel and ‘b’ and parallel the similar thought is expressed in almost the same words. In ‘c’ we have a list of cursings which come together and parallel the blessings in verses 2-6, and in the parallel similar thoughts are expressed. In ‘d’ we have pestilence and disease and in the parallel diseased vineyards and olive tree. In ‘e’ there is lack of rain (which will destroy the vegetation) and in the parallel locusts devouring the vegetation. In ‘f’ they will be smitten before their enemies and they will be ‘an object of horror’ and in the parallel a similar thing is described and they will be ‘an astonishment, a proverb and a byword’. In ‘g’ they will be smitten with boils as in the parallel. In ‘h’ they will be smitten with blindness and in the parallel they will be mad because of the sight of their eyes. In ‘i’ they will not use its fruit and in the parallel other nations will eat of its fruit. In ‘j’ they will lose their herds and flocks and in the parallel their sons and daughters.
28.15 ‘But it shall come about that, if you will not listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, that all these curses shall come on you, and overtake you.’
For if they refuse to listen to the voice of Yahweh their God, and fail to obey His commandments and His statutes as commanded by Moses that day, then all the curses outlined will come on them and overtake them. (Note the parallel in reverse order in verse 45).
They will not be able to avoid these curses. They will pile on, one on top of another. The curses are the opposite of the blessings. Again their intensified completeness is indicated by the number six, and again they parallel the six tribes on the Mount of cursing (27.13).
The First Sixfold Curse (28.16-20).
These curses parallel the blessings in verses 3-6 and must therefore all be seen together.
28.16-19 They will be cursed in the city, in all their comings in, and in their production of offspring; they will be cursed in the countryside, and in all their goings out, and in the increase of their cattle, and the young of their flock; they will be cursed in their basket and their kneading-trough, because the fruit of their ground has been cursed and there is nothing to fill them. This is the tragedy of the Garden of Eden multiplied. Not only is the ground cursed but everything is cursed. They had been on the edge of Paradise and by their folly they have lost everything.
28.20 ‘Yahweh will send on you cursing, confusion (discomfiture), and rebuke, in all that you put your hand to, to do, until you are destroyed, and until you perish quickly, “because of the evil of your doings, by which you have forsaken me”.’
In everything that they now do they will be cursed, they will suffer discomfiture and confusion (compare 7.23; 1 Samuel 5.9, 11; 14.20; Isaiah 22.5), and they will experience constant rebuke in all that they seek to do (compare Isaiah 30.17; Malachi 3.11), and this will go on until they are destroyed, until they perish quickly, and all because of the evil of their doings as a result of which they have forsaken Yahweh.
‘Send on you’ is emphasised by coming first in the sentence. Like the blessings these cursings will be the result of Yahweh’s personal response, as is now made evident. But this time it is not the natural result of the application of the covenant but specifically as a response to their sin.
“Because of the evil of your doings, by which you have forsaken me.” The sudden introduction of a direct word from Yahweh heightens the impact. This is what they are suffering, because of the evil of their doings resulting from the fact that they have forsaken Him.
This summary compounds the individual curses and warns of the final consequences. They will be destroyed because of the evil of their ways. It is comparable to the summary in verse 2 which introduces the blessings. Note again how this first six-fold curse with the summary resembles very closely the blessings lost as described in verses 2-6.
The Second Sixfold Curse (28.21-29).
This is now followed by a further sixfold curse, with each of the six, commencing (in EVV, in MT it comes second with the verb coming first for emphasis) with Yahweh’s name.
Whereas the first curses where on their daily lives and mainly affected the fruitfulness of their crops and herds, resulting from famine conditions, these further curses range wider covering pestilence, disease, and sword. The series contains six detailed curses. Note that we have here also a carefully constructed chiastic structure. Pestilence and disease (verses 21-22), sword (verse 22), famine (verses 22-23), famine (verse 24), sword (verses 25-26), pestilence and disease (verse 27).
The personal aspect of these judgments is now outlined in these six statements as all attributed to Yahweh. They will be smitten with pestilence, with various other disasters, with shortage of rain, by powerful enemies, with the boils of Egypt, and with madness, blindness and despair.
The catastrophes mentioned include those regularly described as judgments, plague, disease, famine, and sword (compare 1 Kings 8.37; 2 Chronicles 20.9; Isaiah 51.19; Jeremiah 14.12; 21.9; 24.10; 27.8; 29.18; 38.2; 42.17, 22; 44.13; Ezekiel 5.17; 6.12; 12.16; 14.21;
28.21 ‘Yahweh will make the pestilence cleave to you, until he has consumed you from off the land, to which you go in to possess it.’
The first main curse sent by Yahweh will be ‘destroying pestilence’, a plague of epidemic proportions. Such plagues have from time to time smitten the world and decimated populations. It will ‘cleave to them’ (emphasised by its place in the sentence) so that they are unable to shrug it off until they are consumed off the land (compare Leviticus 26.25; Numbers 14.12 and see Exodus 9.3, 15).
28.22-23 ‘Yahweh will smite you with consumption, and with burning fever, and with inflammation, and with fiery heat, and with the sword (or ‘drought’), and with blasting, and with mildew; and they will pursue you until you perish, and your heaven that is over your head will be bronze, and the earth that is under you will be iron.’
This is then followed by a sevenfold description of disasters; consumption (Leviticus 26.16), fever (Leviticus 26.16), inflammation , fiery heat, drought, scorching (1 Kings 8.37; 2 Kings 19.26) and mildew (Amos 4.9; Haggai 2.17). The first four suggest unpleasant human diseases which cause high temperatures, not necessarily individual diseases but a spread of diseases which have these symptoms, the last three are disasters which affect plant life. Drought (the translation resulting from repointing from chereb to choreb to fit the threefold pattern. The vowels were not a part of the original text. But see below for a defence of chereb) comes from lack of rain, scorching from the sirocco which sweeps in from the desert, mildew is a form of plant disease. All these things would be their lot until finally they perished from the earth either through disease or starvation (contrast the opposite blessings in verse 8). The heavens would be hard and unyielding, with the sun shining remorselessly in the sky, and the earth would be caked like the hardest stuff known to man (compare Leviticus 26.19). In the parallel in verses 39-40 specific examples are given
However, while the repointing to choreb fits the threefold pattern it can be argued that ‘sword’ (chereb - which LXX agrees with) fits better the following verses where after the sirocco (verse 24) come the enemy and thus the sword (verse 25-26), followed by disease (verse 27) and then affliction and confusion (verses 28-29), a reversing trend to the descriptions above. Thus we should probably retain ‘sword’.
28.24 ‘Yahweh will make the rain of your land powder, and dust from heaven shall come down on you, until you are destroyed.’
Under Yahweh’s hand, instead of raining water the heavens would rain powder and dust. This may have in mind the sirocco on a huge scale sweeping sand in from the desert. And this would continue until they were destroyed. This in huge contrast with the regular covenant promises of rain (contrast verse 12). Dust will come down from heaven instead of the rain. ‘Dust from heaven’ is a contrasting parallel to the heaven giving rain from God’s treasure house (verse 12). And this will destroy them for it will destroy their vegetation. The parallel verse 38 (according to the analysis) reveals their vegetation as being destroyed by locusts, an even more devastating curse.
28.25-26 ‘Yahweh will cause you to be smitten before your enemies. You will go out one way against them, and will flee seven ways before them, and you will be tossed to and fro (or ‘will be an object of horror’) among all the kingdoms of the earth, and your dead body will be food to all birds of the heavens, and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be none to frighten them away.’
Yahweh will also cause them to be smitten by their enemies. Central to the covenant had been His driving their enemies from before them (contrast verse 7). That will now be reversed. He will drive their enemies towards them. Note the contrast with verse 7. It will now not be their enemies who will be scattered ‘seven ways’ after marching confidently forward, but they themselves.
And they will be ‘tossed to and from among the nations’ like something unwanted by anyone, or alternatively ‘will be an object of horror’ to them (the basic verb means ‘to move, to tremble’, compare its use in Ezekiel 23.46), and their bodies will be thrown to the scavengers, and there they will be left to be torn apart, for there will be no one interested enough to scare them away and bury the body. Instead of having dominion over the beasts and the birds (Genesis 1.28), the beasts and birds will eat them up (Psalm 79.2; Jeremiah 7.33; 12.9; Ezekiel 39.17-20; Revelation 19.17-18). They will be totally alone and deserted, especially by Yahweh. He will not care what happens to their bodies. Being unburied was seen in those days as a fate worse than death.
The translation as ‘object of horror’ would fit better with the parallel in the analysis in verse 37 ‘an astonishment, a proverb and a byword’ where the threefoldness intensified the curse.
28.27 ‘Yahweh will smite you with the boil of Egypt, and with plague boils (or ‘tumours’), and with the scurvy (or ‘eczema’, etc.), and with the itch (or scabies, etc.), of which you cannot be healed.’
The boil of Egypt was an unpleasant disease which they had known from Egypt and which was infamous (Exodus 9.9-11; compare Leviticus 13.18-23). A similar disease is identified in an Egyptian medical text. Plague boils indicated the presence of the plague among them, compare verse 21 (also 1 Samuel 8.11-17 for what probably represented plague boils). For scurvy (or eczema, etc.), compare Leviticus 21.20; 22.22. The itch may represent scabies, and other similar skin diseases. We must not look for individually identified diseases, but diseases described by their symptoms. Note the final comment, ‘from which you cannot be healed’. The constant emphasis is on the unpleasantness of the diseases and the permanency of their fate. We can contrast here 8.4 where they had been kept even from foot diseases in the wilderness.
In the parallel verse 35 in the analysis the boils will smite knees and legs and ‘from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head’, an intensification of the curse.
God’s instruction had warned against taking advantage of people’s blindness (27.18; Leviticus 19.14), but now advantage would be taken of them, for they would not be among a people who feared Yahweh. There is here a reversal of covenant blessing.
The blindness and its effects are emphasised. But there is also a spiritual impact. They are also blind towards God. They have turned from the light and are thus now in darkness.
The Third Sixfold Curse (28.30-31).
This is then followed by a further sixfold curse divided into three and three, the first three patterned on ‘you will -- and’, the last three patterned on ‘your -- and’. This third set of curses refers to what have been called ‘futility curses’ where the proper enjoyment of something is not experienced but is frustrated by circumstances.
28.30-31 The first three examples can be compared with 20.5-7. The betrothing of a wife, the building of a house, and the planting of a vineyard were seen as the three main boons that came from God’s blessing and were to be the result of His promises and His covenant. Here they would be lost and would go to others because of their rebellion against Yahweh. The main measure of wealth was a man’s herds and flocks. Here all would be lost because they had broken the covenant. Note the constant stress on the fact that there is none to help (verse 26, 29, and here). They have forsaken Yahweh, and so Yahweh has forsaken them.
In the parallel verses 32-33 in the analysis their sons and daughters will be given to another people and the fruit of their ground and all their labours will be eaten up by a nation that they know not, an intensification of this curse.
The Fourth Sixfold Curse (28.32-37).
The next sixfold pattern is more complicated. It is again divided into three and three, each made up of two statements followed by a consequence. The curses are now becoming more severe.
The first set of curses related to famine. The second set related to confusion, pestilence, disease and sword. The third set related to the frustration of all that has been laboured for being lost without enjoyment of it, and included the loss of a wife. Now the loss goes deeper with the loss of their children for ever.
28.32 ‘Your sons and your daughters will be given to another people, and your eyes will look, and fail with longing for them all the day, and there shall be nought in the power of your hand.’
Even their sons and daughters would be lost to them. Deportation was common practise as it provided slave labour. They would be handed over to strangers. And though they might long all through the long days, and day after day, to see them it would never be. They would be in no position to bring it about.
28.33 ‘The fruit of your ground, and all your labours, will a nation which you know not eat up, and you will be only oppressed and crushed always,’
Their produce and all that they had laboured for, in order to give it to their loved ones, would instead come into the hands of a nation that they had not even known about, who would suddenly come upon them (compare Genesis 14). These strangers would eat what they had sown, and they instead would be continually oppressed and crushed.
28.34 ‘So that you will be mad because of the sight of your eyes which you will see.’
The net result of seeing these things with their eyes, as all that they had built up during their lives for their children was lost to them and their children, and their children were lost to them as well, would bring them into depression and madness. What they saw would be too much for them to cope with. They would also experience disease and exile and watch as they left their homeland far behind (compare Psalm 137).
28.35 ‘Yahweh will smite you in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore boil, from which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head.’
And they would experience many diseases of a kind that Yahweh had previously saved them from. Their knees and their legs would be smitten with sore boils which would never heal, making their life of drudgery a nightmare. Indeed their whole bodies would be affected from head to toe. This would probably be the result of the awful conditions under which they would have to live (see verse 27 contrast 7.15; 8.4; Exodus 15.26). It would, of course, render them ‘unclean’.
28.36 ‘Yahweh will bring you, and your king whom you will set over you, to a nation that you have not known, you nor your fathers, and there will you serve other gods, wood and stone.’
Note the negative view of their future king. Moses perceptively recognises that having a king over them, as he knows one day they will have (for not only was it prophesied but in neglecting Yahweh they would have to look elsewhere for leadership, as they had to Moses), would not tend to lead to faithfulness to Yahweh. He was fully aware that 17.14-20 was a pleasant hope, a picture of Yahweh’s ideal king, rather than something that could be expected. He knew this people too well. Their king would come from among them and be like them. And he links their king with them going into their exile. They would have chosen to be like the Canaanites and he is seeing them in those terms, in the terms of the nations driven out of Canaan who would also be exiled with their kings. What they had done to the Canaanites, would be done to them, because they would have become like the Canaanites. And there they would be without Yahweh. They would serve other gods of wood and stone (compare 4.28), for that is one reason why they will have been cast out of the land, because of their idolatry.
They would have already chosen to follow gods of wood and stone in the land. Now they would be all that they had, because Yahweh had deserted them. (This certainly did partly happen. But God did not full desert them. He raised up prophets in order to encourage the remnant so that they might still have hope).
28.37 ‘And you will become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all the peoples to whom Yahweh will lead you away.’
And all the people among whom they would find themselves would be astonished. They would be talked about and gossiped about as the foolish nation that turned away from Yahweh. Proverbs would be made up about their folly. They would become a byword. Compare 7.6; 14.2; 26.18-19 which brings home what they would have lost. (For the idea compare Isaiah 14.10, 16 spoken of the king of Babylon. They too, like him, had once made the earth tremble).
The Fifth Sixfold Curse (28.38-44).
This is now followed by a further sixfold pattern. Here the curses more reflect conditions in the land. The whole of their agriculture, on which they all depended, would fail and fall into total chaos. It was not only outside enemies that they had to face.
28.38 ‘You will carry much seed out into the field, and will gather little in, for the locust shall consume it.’
Though they would sow plentiful seed in great hopes, they would harvest little, for the locust would descend and eat it, and all their hopes would be dashed before their eyes as they watched helplessly while it was consumed. The swarm of locusts, sometimes 8 kilometres (5 miles) wide, would on descending eat every bit of vegetation in the area over a wide distance. The land would be stripped bare. It was regularly a picture of God’s judgment (Exodus 10.4-19; 1 Kings 8.37; Psalm 105.34; Joel 1.4).
28.39 ‘You will plant vineyards and dress them, but you will neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes, for the worm will eat them.’
Their vineyards which they had dressed so carefully would be attacked by worms or vine weevils so that they produced no fruitfulness. One morning they would come down and perceive the destruction of their vines, about which they could do nothing.
28.40 ‘You will have olive-trees throughout all your borders, but you will not anoint yourself with the oil, for your olive will cast its fruit.’
Even though they might have many olive trees throughout the land, there would be a dearth of oil because they would not produce, but would prematurely cast their fruit because of olive disease. These three examples were a reminder of the fact that all their harvests in the end depend on Yahweh. Contrast 7.13 for what might have been.
28.41 ‘You will beget sons and daughters, but they will not be yours, for they will go into captivity.’
Even though they begot sons and daughters, the delight of their eyes, they would lose them. They would no longer be available to help the family on the land. They would be carried off as slaves to work for others.
28.42 ‘All your trees and the fruit of your ground will the locust possess.’
Not only the grain would be eaten by locusts, but locusts would descend on the whole land and eat everything so that nothing would be left. The arrival of a swarm of locusts was one of the things most dreaded by farmers in the Ancient Near East.
28.43-44 ‘The resident alien who is in the midst of you will mount up above you higher and higher, and you will come down lower and lower. He will lend to you, and you will not lend to him. He will be the head, and you will be the tail.’
On top of all this, the resident aliens whom they had always seen as needy and requiring assistance, and whom they had always called on for extra labour when needed, would become more and more wealthy (they would not be affected by the curse), while they themselves would sink deeper and deeper into poverty. Instead of lending to resident aliens they would be driven to borrow from them. The resident aliens would have become the head, Israel would be the tail (contrast verses 12-13).
A Summary.
The first series of curses are now summarised. There have been five sixfold curses, and it might have been felt that that was enough, but more were to come. And they would be even more terrible and be intensified. This again is typical of ancient treaties.
28.45 ‘And all these curses will come on you, and will pursue you, and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded you.’
All that has been described will come on them, and will pursue them, and will overtake them. The threefold emphasis stresses the inexorable certainty of it. Some will endure one, and some another, but all will have to endure until finally they are destroyed. And this is because they did not hear Yahweh’s voice and did not keep His commandments and statutes which He had commanded them.
28.46 ‘And they will be on you for a sign and for a wonder, and on your seed for ever.’
What would happen to Israel if they forgot God would be a sign and a wonder to the nations. Indeed we read it ourselves for that very reason, and we too wonder. God speaks to us through their experiences. They warn us of the severity of His judgments on those who are not faithful to Him. They had been intended to be a sign and a wonder to the glory of God because of their deliverance from Egypt (4.34; 7.19; 26.8). That should have been their message to the world, the glorious message of what Yahweh had done for them. But they would have forfeited that by their disobedience. Instead they will be a sign of His displeasure, and of what happens to those who having claimed to be His people refuse to obey Him.
The Second Series of Curses (28.47-57).
The curses in this second series can be analysed as follows in the words of Moses: Note that in ‘a’ it will be because they did not serve Yahweh their God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things, and in the parallel it was if they would not observe to do all the words of this law which are written in this book, that they may fear this glorious and fearful name Yahweh their God. In ‘b’ they will each (thou) serve their enemies whom Yahweh will send against them, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things, and He will put a yoke of iron on their neck, until He has destroyed them, and in the parallel each man will eat his children without giving any of the meat to any others of his family (because he is so hungry) in the siege and distress with which their enemy will distress them in their cities. In ‘c’ Yahweh will bring against them a nation of fierce countenance, who will not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young, and in the parallel the tender and delicate woman will be so wrought on that she will eat young and old in order to survive. In ‘d’ the enemy will eat the fruit of their cattle, and in the parallel they themselves will eat the fruit of their own body. In ‘e’ ‘they will besiege you’ with its consequences parallels ‘they will besiege you’ with its consequence.
Note also the repetition in verses 55 and 57 of ‘in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy will distress you in your gates’. This repetition in the second half of a chiasmus is typical of the Pentateuch and occurs in Exodus 18.21b-22a with 18.25b-26a and Numbers in 18.4 with 7, and 23 with24; and elsewhere in Deuteronomy in 2.21 with 22), a pointer to unity of authorship.
Introduction.
28.47-48 ‘Because you did not serve Yahweh your God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things, therefore will you serve your enemies that Yahweh will send against you, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things, and he will put a yoke of iron on your neck, until he has destroyed you.’
The cursing is now taken up again. The purpose of this lengthy treatment and constant repetition in different ways was in order that the point may not be easily forgotten. It is the sign of an adequate preacher that he represents things in different ways so that they will not be forgotten.
The main point being made here is that they had had the opportunity of serving Yahweh in joyfulness and gladness of heart, abundantly provided for, and abundantly blessed. But they had refused. And now the opposite would come on them. Instead of the joyous service of Yahweh, they would be slaves of their enemies, they would hunger and thirst, they would be without proper clothing and made to walk naked in order to shame them (compare Isaiah 20.4), and they would have an iron yoke around their neck. Their condition would be even worse than that from which they had been delivered when they had been in bondage in Egypt. And this would go on until at last they had been destroyed.
The yoke of iron was particularly expressive. Such yokes would have been known in Egypt, purchased from the Hittites. But they were comparatively rare and would have been looked on as something wonderful and to be feared. They were inescapable. You could break a yoke of wood, but not one of iron. And it was excessively heavy and chafing.
Details of the Sixth Sixfold Curse (28.49-58).
The curses now go deeper while repeating some of what has gone before. They had been engaged in much siege warfare in their defeat of Sihon and Og, and the capture of their great cities. They would remember the conditions when they had had to starve people out, and the treatment that they had dispensed. Now they learn that these thing would come back on them if they failed in obedience to the covenant.
28.49-50 ‘Yahweh will bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flies, a nation whose tongue you will not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, who will not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young,’
Literally the last part is, ‘a nation of fierce face who does not lift up the faces of the old ---.’ Unlike Yahweh they are merciless, not compassionate.
These words could have been spoken to the people of Bashan, for that was what had happened to them when Israel arrived. Now it is to be the case of the biter bit. As they had seemed to come on Bashan from nowhere, from ‘the end of the earth’, speaking in a strange tongue and appearing fierce and wild (deliberately so), so would Yahweh bring a similar situation on themselves. This would be a nation ‘from the ends of the earth’ who would come from afar like the eagle flies (compare Hosea 8.1 of Assyria; Jeremiah 48.40; 49.22; Habakkuk.1.8, of Babylon; Daniel 7.4).
But this picture was not of Assyria, or of Babylon, both of which would be known to Moses, for while they were nations who came ‘from far’, they were not ‘from the end of the earth’. Moses is speaking of unknown nations from distant countries from the end of the earth. The whole point of the curse is the mysteriousness of these invaders. But any attacking nation which was not local would seem to be talking in a strange language, and to be fierce and wild. It was part of the training of an army to appear fierce and wild.
‘As the eagle flies.’ Fiercely, swiftly, voraciously ever seeking its prey.
‘A nation whose tongue you will not understand.’ Compare Isaiah 5.26; 28.11; 33.19). The aim is to give an impression of mysteriousness and strangeness.
‘Who will not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young,’ Such invaders would show no mercy to either old or young. They would see them all as the enemy. They would treat all with the same disdain.
28.51 ‘And they will eat the fruit of your cattle, and the fruit of your ground, until you are destroyed; who also will not leave you grain, new wine, or oil, the increase of your cattle, or the young of your flock, until they have caused you to perish.’
These armies would take possession of all that they had. Like a swarm of human locusts they would devour everything leaving them with nothing. For that was usually the reason for the invasion. Compare the picture in Judges 6.1-6, a vivid illustration of this.
28.52 ‘And they will besiege you in all your gates, until your high and fortified walls come down, in which you trust, throughout all your land, and they will besiege you in all your gates throughout all your land, which Yahweh your God has given you.’
Their recent memory of their own activities in Gilead and Bashan would come back to mind as they heard these words. As they had besieged, so would they be besieged, until their walls came down, the walls in which they trusted instead of in Yahweh, and their gates would be attacked until they fell. And this in the land which Yahweh their God had given them, because they had despised the gift by their behaviour.
28.53 ‘And you will eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters, whom Yahweh your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies will distress you.’
And as a result of starvation, as the effects of the siege began to bite, they would even eat their own children, again what Yahweh their God had given them, (even in the midst of the curses they were constantly being made to recognise what gratitude they should show to Yahweh), because of the distress in which they would find themselves.
28.54-55 ‘The man who is gentle among you, and very caring, his eye will be evil towards his brother, and towards the wife of his bosom, and towards the remnant of his children whom he has remaining, so that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat, because he has nothing left him, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy will distress you in all your gates.’
But the situation would be so desperate, that even the most gentlemanlike and the most loving would lose all restraint and become the very opposite. In eating their children they would keep it from their wives and other children because they did not want to have to share what they ate, because of the dire need, so dreadful would conditions be. Such behaviour during sieges was not unknown.
28.56-57 ‘The tender and delicate woman among you, who would not adventure to set the sole of her foot on the ground for delicacy and tenderness, her eye will be evil towards the husband of her bosom, and towards her son, and towards her daughter, and towards her young one who comes out from between her feet, and towards her children whom she will bear, for she will eat them for want of all things, secretly, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy will distress you in your gates.’
And even the woman who was so ladylike and delicate that she would not want her feet to touch the ground but would clad them to protect them, not wanting any dust or dirt to defile them, or would arrange to travel in litters for the same purpose, would think nothing of eating her husband and all her children, including the baby that she had just given birth to, even without washing it, because of the desperate state that she was in because of the distress of the siege.
The picture is a dreadful and horrific one, deliberately so, for the purpose was that it might be remembered (compare Leviticus 26.29).
28.58 ‘If you will not observe to do all the words of this law which are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and fearful name, YAHWEH YOUR GOD,’
In the midst of the gloom, the way of escape is offered. If they live in accordance with the covenant and observe to do all the words of His instruction ‘written in this book’, and fear the glorious and fearful name of Yahweh their God, this will not happen to them. But if they do not then they can only expect the worst.
So ends the sixfold pattern of sixfold curses, thirty six curses in all, a further reminder that they were being applied to the six tribes on Mount Ebal who were ‘for the curse’. And yet he had not yet finished. One final series of curses had to be given in order to make them sevenfold, the ultimate in divine curses.
The Third Series of Curses (28.59-68).
The sixfold pattern here is not quite so apparent (there is always the danger of seeking to fit the text into a pre-prepared straitjacket). It is certainly more complicated here, but what has preceded suggests that we should seek such a pattern here too, to make up seven sixfold patterns, the number of divine completeness.
This is the ultimate in curses. In the final analysis they will be removed from the land, as they had removed the nations of Canaan from the land. This had to be so, for their permission to be in the land was dependent on obedience to the covenant which had granted them the land. It would be the final fulfilment of all the warnings that Yahweh had given them (compare Leviticus 26.33-39).
The final six curses will result in dreadful diseases (see verses 22, 27, 35; Leviticus 26.16, 21, 25; compare Exodus 32.35; Numbers 11.33; 14.12; 25.8-9), decimation of their numbers (4.27; Leviticus 26.21-22), destruction and removal from the land (4.26; 6.15; 7.4; 8.19-20; 11.17), scattering among the peoples (4.27; 32.26; Leviticus 26.33), total lack of rest (Leviticus 26.36, 39 contrast 12.9-10) and finally a return to bondage in Egypt (compare Hosea 8.13; 9.3).
Analysis in the words of Moses;
Note in ‘a’ that He will bring on them the diseases of Egypt and in the parallel they will again be bondsmen in Egypt. These were the two most vivid bad memories of life in Egypt. In ‘b. they will be left few in number and in the parallel we have a vivid description of how that will come about. In ‘c’ they will be scattered among all people and will serve other gods, and in the parallel among these nations they will find no ease and no rest for their feet (the consequence of serving other gods).
28.59-61 ‘Then Yahweh will make your plagues wonderful, and the plagues of your seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. And he will bring on you again all the diseases of Egypt, which you were afraid of, and they will cleave to you. Also every sickness, and every plague, which are not written in the book of this law, those will Yahweh bring upon you, until you are destroyed.’
The level of disease that would come on them would be extremely high for they would be His judgments and he would have withdrawn His protection. He would bring on them ‘extraordinary plagues’, and on their children He would bring great plagues, long continuing plagues, and long continuing sore sicknesses. The purpose is to bring out the awful consequences of sin. Much of the disease in the world is due to sin, not as a direct judgment, but as the result of the way men live and act. For this bringing of disease contrast 7.15; Exodus 15.26; and for the plagues of Egypt compare Exodus 9.9-14).
‘All the diseases of Egypt, which you were afraid of.’ There were many diseases in Egypt of which they had been afraid, including among many others tuberculosis, trachoma causing blindness, elephantisis, and severe boils (Exodus 9.9). The boil of Egypt was an unpleasant disease which they had known from Egypt and which was infamous (Exodus 9.9-11; compare Leviticus 13.18-23). A similar disease is identified in an Egyptian medical text. They would not only suffer from these diseases but they would ‘cleave to them’. They would be permanent.
‘Which are not written in the book of this law (instruction).’ This implies instruction already in writing and must indicate at least the basis of the Pentateuch in writing at this time.
28.62-63 ‘And you (ye) will be left few in number, whereas you (ye) were as the stars of heaven for multitude, because you (thou) did not listen to the voice of Yahweh your God.’
In 1.10; 10.22 he had boasted how Yahweh had multiplied them. Now he warns that He would decimate them. Growing in numbers was a part of the covenant made with their fathers (Genesis 12.2; 22.17; 26.4, 24). It was a proof of Yahweh’s blessing. But to desert the covenant would result in decimation. We have only to think of what is described in the curses to recognise how this would be so. Yet hidden within this threat is a promise. In destroying them there would be a small remnant remaining (compare Isaiah 6.13).
28.63 ‘And it will come about, that, as Yahweh rejoiced over you (ye) to do you (ye) good, and to multiply you (ye), so Yahweh will rejoice over you (ye) to cause you (ye) to perish, and to destroy you (ye), and you (ye) shall be plucked from off the land to which you go in order to possess it.’
The contrast is made between what Yahweh had done and longed to do for them, and what He would do because of their rebellion. He had rejoiced over them, it had been His good pleasure to do them good, He had multiplied them. But because of what they would have become He would rejoice in causing them to perish and destroying them. There is a real sense in which God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He would prefer that they turned from their wickedness and lived. But what was righteous in Him could only rejoice in the destruction of those who were the causes of sin when there was no hope of repentance. Thus some would perish, some would be destroyed, and some would be plucked from the land which Yahweh had given them to possess. For that possession had depended on obedience.
This would be no rush decision. Later history testifies to His forbearance and longsuffering. But eventually He would do it if He had to.
28.64 ‘And Yahweh will scatter you (thee) among all peoples, from the one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth, and there you will serve other gods, which you have not known, you nor your fathers, even wood and stone.’
And when they were plucked from the land they would be scattered among the nations, among ‘all peoples’, from one end of earth to the other. The picture is of widespread distribution far exceeding that of Assyria and Babylon. It is general rather than specific. And there they would throw themselves into idolatry, serving many gods, so lost to all that they had once believed in would they be. They would become like the Canaanites whom they should have driven out.
This did indeed happen to many. And that was why many never came back. They were scattered by many things, captivity, fear, necessity, the sad state of the land, and they ended up among many nations in total apostasy. The picture is the reversal of all the hopes that they had as they listened to Moses. It must have appeared surreal.
28.65-67 ‘And among these nations you will find no ease, and there will be no rest for the sole of your foot, but Yahweh will give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and pining of soul, and your life will hang in doubt before you, and you will fear night and day, and will have no assurance of your life. In the morning you will say, “Would that it were even!” and at even you will say, “Would that it were morning!” for the fear of your heart which you will fear, and for the sight of your eyes which you will see.’
But let them be assured of this. They would find no rest (contrast 3.20; 12.9; 25.19; Exodus 33.14; Joshua 1.13; Judges 3.11, etc.). There would be no ease, no rest for the sole of their feet, no rest for their hearts and minds. Their hearts would tremble, their eyes would fail because of their distress, their souls would pine, their lives would be in the balances. Day and night they would be afraid, and they would far for their lives. In the morning they would long for the evening, and in the evening they would long for the morning, so terrible would their lives be, because of what their hearts feared, and because of what their eyes saw. They would have lost the covenant rest which God had promised them.
28.68 ‘And Yahweh will bring you into Egypt again with ships, by the way of which I said to you, “You shall see it no more again,” and there you (ye) will sell yourselves (ye) to your enemies for bondsmen and for bondswomen, and no man will buy you.’
And finally they would ‘return to Egypt’. Yahweh will do what the king must not do (17.16). Here was the ultimate curse. They would be back to the place from which they had been delivered from slavery and they would not even be wanted as slaves. Now it is clear from what has been said that all these things could not apply to all the people. Least of all this when so many had been scattered among the nations. It is rather the significance that was in mind. Many of them would be returned whence they came. The deliverance would be reversed. ‘By the way that you came’ does not under this interpretation mean a strict using of the ways previously travelled but arrival at the same place from which they had originally set out, Egypt.
Moses knew that a common way to travel from Egypt in order to avoid the hardships of the way was by ship along the coast, but he probably had little knowledge of the difficulties of the Palestine coastline. He did, however, know that much trade along the coast took place by ship. The thought is not of general trade but rather of their being in such desperation that they would travel there in order to sell themselves into slavery. Slaves would often be delivered to Egypt by ship. Yahweh had said that they would see it no more. But that had depended on obedience. It would be a different matter now.
Alternately it has been suggested that based on Ugaritic evidence ‘with ships’ should be rather translated as ‘casually’. Then the thought would be that they literally returned by the way that they had come with little forethought, in order to sell themselves as slaves in Egypt, or that they were dragged there by traders who cared little.
But, whichever be the case, so poor would be their condition that no one would buy them. They would simply be dispensable. This would be the final ignominy. They would be so valueless that they would not even be wanted as slaves in Egypt.
A little thought will demonstrate that this had to be said by Moses at this time. No one in the future would ever have seen this as the ultimate curse. And to no one else but Israel then would it have had the same impact.
It should be pointed out that this is not intended to be prophecy. It is in fact describing what could happen in any century BC. Famine, pestilence and war were commonplace, sieges constantly took place. We only relate it to later centuries because we have records of what happened then and see it in that light. But to Moses it was simply the inevitable result of the losing of the protection of Yahweh and the incurring of His anger, and the consequence of their disobedience in incurring the loss of the gift of the land as the Canaanite had before them. The choice was simple. Remaining within the covenant and enjoying all that God had in store for them as His people, or turning from the covenant and facing the inevitable consequences of rejection.
29.1 ‘These are the words of the covenant which Yahweh commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.’
With these words Moses’ great speech, which began at 5.1, finishes. It is stated as portraying a covenant which parallels that given at Horeb. It is not a replacement. The two are to be seen as one, as his first introduction demonstrated. For it was fully based on what happened at Sinai (chapter 5). This may also be the colophon on the tablet or papyrus on which it was written.
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our
best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
(But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH ---
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS ---
DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- I & II CHRONICLES ---
EZRA---NEHEMIAH---ESTHER---PSALMS 1-73--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON
--- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS ---
EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1
CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS
--- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S
LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
Author,authorsip,Deuteronomy,commentary,covenant,central,sanctuary,
d You will plant vineyards and dress them, but you will neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes, for the worm will eat them, you will have olive-trees throughout all your borders, but you will not anoint yourself with the oil, for your olive will cast its fruit (39-40).
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
Moses,Caleb,Joshua,Nun,Horeb,Shechem,Edom,Ammon,Moab,Shiloh,curse,
cursing,blessing,Mount,Ebal,Gerizim,oak,Moreh,prophet,like,Sihon,
Amorite,Heshbon,Og,Bashan,bedstead,Gilead,cities,refuge,Kadesh,
Qadesh,Leviticus,Exodus,Numbers,book,Pentateuch,Israel,Genesis,
Canaan,Egypt,Aaron,Levite,Yahweh,God,Sinai,tabernacle,tent,meeting,priest,
high,altar,blood,memorial,oblation,elders,congregation,clean,unclean,holy,most
