Note how in ‘a’ Yahweh calls to Moses from the mountain, while in the parallel Moses replies to Yahweh and tells Him words of the people. In ‘b’ Yahweh declares in a short covenant form what He had done to their oppressors, the Egyptians, and how He had borne them on eagles’ wings and brought them too Himself, while in the parallel He will come in a thick cloud (the cloud that has ever been their protector and has gone with them) so that the people might hear Him and believe, being thus brought to Himself. In ‘c’ the call in the covenant is to obey Him while in the parallel the people respond in promising obedience. In ‘d’ He calls on them to keep His covenant while in the parallel His covenant words are to be spoken to the children of Israel. In ‘e’ they are to be a special possession and in the parallel they are to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the central promises of the covenant. While ‘f’ is central to the whole covenant.

19.3-4 ‘And Moses went up to God, and Yahweh called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel. You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.”

Having arrived at the mount and encamped Moses went up into the mountain to meet with God (it is the mountain of God), as 3.12 had promised he would. And as he ascended Yahweh spoke to him from the mountain above.

The words that follow are in the form of a covenant. They are addressed to the people, they declare what Yahweh has done for them and how He has cared for them, they further declare what privileges will be theirs if they hear and obey Him. And Moses is then called on to report His words to the people, to which they make a specific covenant response. This is preparing them for the greater experience that they will shortly have, a kind of preparation before the main event.

‘The house of Jacob --- the children of Israel.’ This demonstrates how closely the phrase ‘the children of Israel’ still refers back to Jacob as their patriarchal figure. They are of the household of Jacob, one people. Thus are the mixed multitude (12.38) ensured of their place in Jacob’s household, and among the children of Israel if they respond to His covenant.

The reference back to the wonders He wrought in Egypt and the way He had brought them through the wilderness is preparatory to this covenant but is also preparing for the great covenant that is coming. These events are the basis of the covenant, the reason why He demands that they accept it.

‘Went up to God (Elohim).’ Here ‘God’ is probably used instead of Yahweh to stress a movement into the supernatural sphere. ‘Elohim’ stresses the sphere of the supernatural and can be used of angels and spirits. Thus it stresses that Moses was moving into a higher sphere, where he met God. But it is Yahweh Who speaks to him.

‘Bore you on eagles’ wings.’ The eagle flew swiftly (Deuteronomy 28.49; 2 Samuel 1.23) and bore its young on its wings (Deuteronomy 32.11). So has Yahweh borne His people through the wilderness. They are His ‘young’. (In the Bible the term ‘eagle’ is used of large birds generally and often refers to vultures).

‘Brought you to myself.’ These words are indicative of the importance of this moment. They have been brought to Him as His own chosen people. And now, as a result of His sovereign choice, revealed by His actions on their behalf, He will have dealings with them.

In verse 9 we have the parallel thought that He has been with them in His thick cloud in which His presence is made known to them, from which He will speak to them so that they might hear and believe

19.5 “Now therefore if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, then you will be my treasured personal possession from among all peoples. For all the earth is mine.”

Having first stated why they should be grateful to Him, He now declares that if they will obey Him and observe the requirements of His covenant, then He will treat them in turn as special and unique. As we shall see, this gratitude for what He has done for them, and the subsequent demand for obedience to His terms, is the basis of the covenant in chapter 20 that we call the Ten Commandments, but Exodus calls ‘the ten words’ (we call it that because we have partly missed the point of what it is really saying. We stress the commandments as permanent principles and tend to ignore the covenant).

‘My treasured personal possession.’ (Hebrew ‘segulah’). Compare its use in 1 Chronicles 3 where it differentiates David’s own treasure from the general treasure. All the earth is Yahweh’s but they will be specially His own. There for His joy and delight and cared for as none other.

‘For all the earth is mine.’ A clear declaration that He is God of the whole earth and can do with it as He will. That is why what He is doing will affect all peoples.

19.6 “And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you will speak to the children of Israel.”

While certainly forward looking this promise is intrinsic in the covenants made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If the whole world was to be blessed through them, and through His covenant with them, there had to be some means of it reaching to the world and in those days this would be accomplished through teaching priests. Thus God’s destiny for Israel was that they should be priests to the nations. They were to be holy to Yahweh, separated and true to Him, and finally to minister to the nations.

‘A kingdom of priests.’ As Yahweh’s subjects they were later to have priestly responsibility towards the nations. No other description of a whole people who were to evangelise the world would have been conceivable at that time. In the terms of the day it would include sacrificial responsibilities, including the ministering of the benefits of those sacrifices, and teaching responsibilities so that men may know and understand Yahweh’s covenant (the teaching responsibilities of priests are referred to in Deuteronomy 33.8-10; see also Jeremiah 31.34 for the future hope that all Israel will qualify as teachers. Compare 2 Chronicles 17.7-10; Nehemiah 8.7-8; Malachi 2.6-7). What Moses at present did for them acting as their priest they would do for the nations. The later fulfilment of this through the ministry of the cross and the true Christian church is the quite remarkable result (1 Peter 2.5, 9; Revelation 1.6).

‘A holy nation.’ A nation set apart to Yahweh for a holy purpose, sharing His sanctity and uniquely in a position to dispense His mercy to the world. This, as the covenant makes clear, includes purity of living, something unique in regard to the concept of ‘holiness’ in the ancient world. They were ideally to present to the world the essence of what Yahweh was in visible form, and were separated off for this purpose which would be accomplished by their obedience to the covenant, which in itself would reveal Yahweh’s uniqueness and purity to the world.

‘These are the words that you will speak to the children of Israel.’ So Yahweh begins preparations for what is about to happen by outlining His final purposes for them. From the beginning they are shown the distant objective and their glorious destiny. Before the detail they are shown the final overall plan.

19.7-8 ‘And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which Yahweh commanded them, and all the people answered together and said, “All that Yahweh has said, we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to Yahweh.’

Moses reported back to the elders all that Yahweh had said, and his requirement that the people should see themselves as priests to the nations, with their lives dedicated to this responsibility. The people themselves were then informed and brought together en masse. And there they declared their intent to do what Yahweh had said.

Then Moses returned into the mountain and told Yahweh what the response the people had made. There was an offer, and an acceptance, and the acceptance of the covenant was now communicated to the offerer.

19.9 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you for ever.” And Moses told the words of the people to Yahweh.’

The cloud was already the visible sign of Yahweh’s presence with His people. Perhaps it had already gone to the top of the mountain when Moses went there. Now Yahweh promises that when He speaks the words of His great covenant the cloud will appear so that all the people will see that He is speaking to Moses and will hear His words. Then their faith will not just rest on what Moses tells them but also on what they themselves have heard and seen.

‘And may also believe you for ever.’ This was one thing on which future generations of Israel would never be in doubt, that Yahweh had given His covenant on the Mount and had revealed His demands through Moses.

‘And Moses told the words of the people to Yahweh.’ This may well have been for a second time. Possibly it was like the responses in a consecration service, with the replies often repeated (compare 24.3, 7). If so, to this new approach from Yahweh he repeats the words of the people, “All that Yahweh has said, we will do.” It was important that they should voluntarily indicate their willingness to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation as Yahweh desired, and a thing repeated twice was especially binding.

However, repetition was commonplace in ancient narratives and this may simply be a repeat intended to stress that Moses did give the peoples’ reply to Yahweh, binding them to His requirements, thus making their responsibility doubly clear.

The People Are To Prepare For What Yahweh Is Going To Do (19.10-25) .

This passage is also based on a chiastic construction as follows:

• a Moses is told to prepare the people so that they will be ready (10-11).
• b Bounds are to be set, they must not touch the mount lest they die (12-13).
• c Moses sanctifies the people in readiness (14-15).
• d The awesome scene is described. Thunders and lightning and a thick cloud on the mount, and the sound of a trumpet, all the people tremble (16).
• e The people brought forth to meet with God (17a).
• e The people stand at the bottom of the mount (17b).
• d The awesome scene is described. The mount is on smoke, Yahweh descends in fire, smoke rises, the mount quakes, the voice of a trumpet sounds long, when Yahweh comes down on the top of the mount, and Moses goes up to meet Yahweh (18-20).
• c The priests to sanctify themselves lest Yahweh break forth on them (21).
• b The priests and people not to approach the mount lest Yahweh break forth on them (23-24).
• a Moses goes down to the people and speaks to them (25).

The chiasmus is powerful. The opening and closing statements (a) show Moses in total control over the whole situation, while b at both ends stresses in contrast the need for the people not to approach the mount. They are not worthy. The chiasmus then brings out in d (‘surrounding’ the people in e) the mighty and fearful things by which they were ‘surrounded’ and the contrast between the people, of whom it is said, ‘all the people --- trembled’, and Moses of whom it is said, ‘Moses went up (to the top of the mount)’. So the people tremble, while Moses goes boldly up to meet Yahweh. Note also the stress on each side of the description of the mount (in c) of their need to be sanctified, both people and priests in order to face this experience of Yahweh. And in the midst of all this, trembling and afraid are the people brought forth to meet God and at the bottom of the mount (e).

19.10-13 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes and be ready against the third day, for on the third day Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people on Mount Sinai. And you will set bounds for the people round about, saying, ‘Take notice of yourselves that you do not go up the mount, or touch its border. Whoever touches the mount will surely be put to death. No hand shall touch him for he shall surely be stoned or shot through. Whether it be beast or man it shall not live. When the trumpet sounds a long note they will go up the mount.’ ” ’

The conditions God lays down stress the sacredness of this experience. He Himself is going to descend in the full reality of His presence, although hidden by a cloud. So intense will be His presence that the mountain will be so holy that nothing earthly must touch it while He is there manifested to such an extent. Only Moses, and then Aaron, the men whom He has set apart to Himself, will be able to enter it.

So Moses is to set a boundary, some kind of physical indicator, beyond which the people may not come. That boundary and all above it will be sacred and must not be touched from the border upwards.

‘Sanctify them today and tomorrow.’ Possibly by the offering of sacrifice. ‘Sanctify them’ may represent something to be done by Moses - compare Exodus 29.1 - but it could simply mean ‘arrange for them to sanctify themselves’. This must then be followed by them washing their clothes and avoiding contact with anything seen as ritually unclean, which included abstention from sexual intercourse (19.15; compare Leviticus 15.16-18; 1 Samuel 21.4-5). It may well have included bathing themselves daily as a preparatory act, for the removing of earthiness in view of their approach to God (Exodus 30.20; 40.32). The washing of the clothes and waiting for a period was later regularly a way by which ‘cleansing’ could finally be effected (Leviticus 11.28, 40 and often) and in some cases bathing was also required (Leviticus 15.5 and often). The period of sanctifying demonstrated how pure they had to be.

‘Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people on Mount Sinai.’ The whole people are to be witnesses to this amazing event, Yahweh coming down on Mount Sinai.

‘Whoever touches the mount shall surely be put to death.’ This is because they will have come in contact with the mount where God is, in direct defiance of His commands, and will have defiled it. They must learn the holiness and ‘otherness’ of God (compare 3.5).

‘No hand shall touch him.’ That is, shall touch any transgressor. This is because something of the ‘holiness’ of the Mount is seen as imparted to him which none must come in contact with. Nothing that touches the mount at that time shall be allowed to live, even if it be a stray animal. Thus his death must be by stoning or by arrow shot, not by contact. Thus the holiness and total ‘otherness’ (unlike anything known) of God is emphasised.

The purpose of all these restrictions is to bring home the supreme holiness and otherness of God and to prevent the people from treating His approach too lightly. God is not to be treated lightly, something we need to be more aware of in the present day.

‘When the trumpet sounds a long note they shall go up (to) the mount.’ At the long trumpet blast they are to go up the mount to the bounds marked by Moses. Alternately, but more unlikely, this may mean that the mount will no longer be seen as holy once there has been an extra long blast of the trumpet. Another suggestion is that ‘they’ means the people’s representatives, Moses and Aaron.

The point at which a mountain begins is always an open question as there will be slopes leading up to it. The boundary is to be decided by Moses. This then refers to coming up to that point.

19.14 ‘And Moses went down from the Mount to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, “Be ready against the third day. Do not come near a woman.” ’

The sanctifying by Moses was possibly by the offering of sacrifices (compare Exodus 29.1) after which the people washed their clothes in readiness for God’s call. From then on they had to avoid anything that would make them ritually unclean, including sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse produced uncleanness on the body (Leviticus 15.16-18) and they were required to be ritually pure for the whole three days (compare 1 Samuel 21.5).

It is significant that sexual intercourse was seen as an earthly activity excluded from the heavenly. This may well partly have been because of its association with certain religious rituals elsewhere, as well as because it was associated with man’s first sin. But Jesus will later point out that the angels in Heaven ‘neither marry nor are given in marriage’. It is very much a ‘fleshly’ activity.

19.16 ‘And on the third day, when it was morning, it happened. There were thunders and lightning and thick cloud on the Mount, and the sound of an exceedingly loud trumpet. And all the people who were in the camp trembled.’

On the morning of the third day what appeared to be a terrible electrical storm came on the mountain top. There was thunder and lightning and thick cloud. And from it came the sound of what seemed like an exceedingly loud trumpet. What caused this latter naturally speaking, if it was a natural manifestation, we do not know. It may well have been a deliberate representation of a trumpet blast announcing the arrival of the King. But through it all God was preparing to manifest Himself.

19.17 ‘And Moses brought the people out of the camp and they stood at the lowest part of the mountain.’

At the coming of the storm Moses obediently brought all the people up to the bounds that he had set at ‘the lowest part of the mountain’, the mounds leading up to the mountain.

19.18 ‘And Mount Sinai was totally covered in smoke because Yahweh descended on it in fire, and its smoke ascended as the smoke of a furnace and the whole mountain quaked greatly.’

Fire and smoke were both symbols of God in Genesis 15.17 where He appeared in a smoking furnace and a flaming torch. This manifestation at Sinai reproduced the same on a grander scale. It would remind the people of that covenant with Abram, confirmed by smoke and fire, and the great deliverance from Egypt He then promised (Genesis 15.13-14). Fire was the most awe-inspiring thing known to ancient man, and fire swirling with smoke the most destructive. Man had experienced its effects often, he had seen it consume great areas of land, he knew himself how to use it for destructive purposes. And he had learned to fear it. And God was the untouchable and unapproachable fire.

God appearing in the likeness of fire is common in both Old and New Testaments (see Genesis 15.17; Exodus 13.21; 19.16, 18; 20.18; 24.17; 40.38; Deuteronomy 4.11; Ezekiel 1.27; 8.2: Acts 2.3; 1 Timothy 6.16; Revelation 21.23; 22.5). To the ancient such a manifestation showed God to be a combination of the inexplicable and the beneficial, of the dangerous and yet vital. Yahweh had no form and yet like fire could be seen even in the darkness. He could even bring light to the darkness. Like fire He benefited man and yet could consume him. He was glorious and awe-inspiring and then in a moment He could be gone. In manifestation fire brought home something of the significance of the divine. But above all it revealed glory.

‘Totally covered in smoke --- its smoke ascended as the smoke of a furnace.’ Isaiah 4.5 demonstrates that smoke and cloud can be seen as parallels in this context, for he spoke of ‘a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night’ with the pillars of cloud and fire, and probably this scene, in mind (compare also Isaiah 6.4). Thus the smoke represented Yahweh appearing in a cloud.

But the ascending smoke would also remind them of that dreadful and awesome day when God reigned down fire from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah. There too ‘the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace’ (Genesis 19.28). He was a God of judgment as well as a God of glory. So we have both fire and smoke, light (13.21) and judgment, the Guide (through cloud and fire) and the Judge.

‘The whole mountain quaked greatly.’ This may have been caused by the impression given by the excessive rumbling of the heavy thunder and the continual flickering of the lightning, heightened by the divine presence, or there may have been a minor earthquake that shook the mountain to its core. Either way it added to the awesomeness of the experience.

19.20-21 ‘And Yahweh came down on Mount Sinai, to the mountain peak, and Yahweh called Moses to the mountain peak, and Moses went up. And Yahweh said to Moses, “Go down. Charge the people lest they break through to Yahweh to gaze and many of them perish.”

As God looked down He knew the hearts of the people, and He had mercy on them. He knew that their trembling fear (verse 16) was slowly turning into awed curiosity (‘to gaze’ - verse 21), and that in such a state some might become careless and thus perish. So He sent for Moses to come up to Him on the mountain peak, and from there He sent him down to prevent it happening. He did not want His gracious appearance to turn into tragedy. The people would be filled with awe to think that Moses had been allowed into the holy mount while God was resident.

‘Charge the people.’ They were to be given a strict charge not a mild admonishment. The matter was deadly serious.

19.22 ‘And let the priests also who come near to Yahweh, sanctify themselves, lest Yahweh break forth on them.’

This refers to Moses and Aaron. They are the priests who approach Yahweh at this time (verse 24). Moses especially (17.15), and Aaron with him, are the ones who at this stage mainly act as priests on behalf of the people. There were secondary priests, heads of their fathers’ houses, but they were not to be allowed to approach on this holy mountain (19.24). Yahweh is reminding the people of the exalted position of Moses and Aaron.

But before they do so even they must sanctify themselves. For they cannot come without that. So once he has gone down the mountain and been with the people Moses, before returning, must again wash his clothes, to remove the earthiness of being with the people, as must Aaron. Then they may again approach Yahweh.

‘Let the priests who approach Yahweh.’ This is emphasising that Moses and Aaron, as those who are to approach Yahweh, have their privileged access as priests to the people. This is the reason that they come before Him, because they are mediators for the people. Yet in this case they alone of all the priests are to be allowed this access. This brings out the unique holiness of this situation. But because of this very fact they must re-sanctify themselves.

But behind the specific situation is a general situation. All priests who approach Yahweh at any time must sanctify themselves. Indeed the words may be a quotation of words already given to Moses and written down in the statutes previously laid down (15.25). The simple approach confirms their primitive form. They will soon be replaced by a more complex situation.

‘Lest Yahweh break forth on them.’ They too will be destroyed if they do not obey Yahweh’s requirements (compare 4.24) or if they seek to approach him covered in earthiness.

19.23 ‘And Moses said to Yahweh, “The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, for you charged us saying, ‘Set bounds about the Mount and sanctify it’.” ’

Moses is still a little naive. He cannot conceive that the people would disobey Yahweh and break through the bounds and enter the sanctified area of the mountain, for Yahweh has forbidden it, and to him that is final, and besides there is the threat of instant death. But Yahweh knows His people better than he.

19.24 ‘And Yahweh said to him, “Go, get yourself down, and you will come up, you, and Aaron with you, but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to Yahweh, lest he break out upon them.” So Moses went down to the people and told them.’

Again Yahweh issues His warning through Moses. Whether priest or people none may approach Yahweh in the Mount except His two priests, Moses and Aaron. Otherwise they will face the dire consequences of which they have been warned. He is aware how easily someone might feel he was the equal of Moses and Aaron, especially among the priests, and might feel he could brave the ban. God did not want this to happen. He had no delight in the death of His people.

‘And Aaron with you.’ We are not told that Aaron goes into the mount with Moses until 24.1 where he is one of a group. But this need not mean that Aaron did not go up with Moses. We have regularly seen in the past that Yahweh has said something will happen and then it is assumed that it happened. The word of Yahweh was sufficient to establish the happening. Thus we may assume that often when Moses goes up, Aaron goes up. Compare how later Joshua seemingly accompanies Moses but nothing is said of his presence after the initial statement (24.13).

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT (20.1 - 23.33).

In 24.7 we read of a ‘book of the covenant’ written by Moses (see 24.4). Logically this must include the Sinai covenant and what follows, for the Sinai covenant was not made known to the people (they heard it as though it were thunder and the sound of a trumpet) until revealed to them by Moses. Some, however, see the book of the covenant as starting at 20.22 commencing with the words, ‘and Yahweh said to Moses’, but as these are provisions extending the Sinai covenant and gain their validity through it we would argue that The Book of the Covenant commences here, although not denying that it is in two sections. This is confirmed by 24.3 where Moses speaks to the people ‘all the words of Yahweh and all the judgments’. The ‘judgments’ are in 21 onwards (see 21.1), ‘all the words’ must surely refer to the ten words and 20.22-26.

(Note to Christians.

As we look at this chapter, we as the true Israel, the Israel of God, made up of the descendants of those Jews who first came to Jesus Christ in such abundance to form the new Israel (‘My congregations’ - Matthew 16.18), and of all who through their testimony and its after effects have come to Him and been incorporated into the new Israel, can take to ourselves the words of His covenant. We can recognise in it our calling to be a kingdom of priests (verse 6 above; 1 Peter 2.5, 9) and a holy nation (verse 6 above; 1 Peter 2.9), and rejoice in the fact that we are a people for His special possession (verse 5 above; Titus 2.14; 1 Peter 2.9). And hearing of the splendour of the revelation of God at Sinai, we can recognise afresh that we deal with a holy and powerful God, Who has not changed. What has changed is that Jesus Christ having been offered for the sins of the world, we can approach Him without fear if our hearts are right towards Him.

End of note).

The Declaration of the Covenant (20.1-21).

Before looking at the words that follow we must consider a phenomenon that was prevalent in the Near East around the time of Moses, and that is a particular form of Suzerainty covenant which was made by overlords with their subjects at that time, once they had been conquered. These were written in such a way as to suggest that the overlord was doing the subjugated a favour. And in return for that favour he expected them to fulfil the conditions of the treaty. He would begin by declaring his name and titles and would then follow that up with a historical outline of the benefits he had brought on his vassals. This would then be followed by a statement of their obligations and warnings of what would happen to those who breached them.

There are seven respects in which these treaties, made by overlords with their subjects in the Near East during the last part of the second millennium BC (the time of Moses), parallel certain major Biblical covenants, including this covenant in Exodus chapter 20.

• 1). They begin with mention by name of the superior lord who enters into the treaty with his vassal (compare Exodus 20.1-2; Deuteronomy 5.6; Joshua 24.2).
• 2). The great king outlines his benevolent deeds towards his vassal (Exodus 20.2; 23.22; Deuteronomy 5.6; 8.1-10; 10.22-11.15; Joshua 24.2-13).
• 3). The various obligations of the vassal towards his lord are outlined (Exodus 20.3-17; Deuteronomy 5.7-21; 6.1-9; 10.12-21; 13 - 26).
• 4). In the vassal’s obligations there is a specific prohibition against entering into relations with other powers. In the case of the Sinai covenant this is stated in terms of a prohibition against having other gods (Exodus 20.3; Deuteronomy 5.7; 6.10-15; 7.1-6; 8.11-20; Joshua 24.14-15).
• 5) The treaty was deposited in a sanctuary and publicly read out from time to time (Exodus 25.16, 21 on; Deuteronomy 6.20-25; 11.18-20; 12.5-18; 14.23; 31.9-13; Joshua 24.6).
• 6) Witnesses were often invoked (Joshua 24.22).
• 7). Blessing and curses or warnings were invoked on those who break the treaty (Exodus 20.5b, 6, 7b, 12b; 23.20-22; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 11.26-28; 27 on; 27.11-26; 28; Joshua 8.34).

So it is evident that what we call the Ten Commandments is in fact a suzerainty treaty in this form. As their great sovereign Lord and Deliverer, Yahweh makes a treaty with His people. It takes the form of a preliminary statement about Himself and then ten ‘words’, possibly, but not necessarily, later refined and expanded by Moses, which bring out man’s right attitude towards God both in their behaviour towards Him and in their behaviour towards their fellowmen. For to misuse His people is to misuse Him. They are called ‘the words of the covenant, the ten words’ (Exodus 34.28; Deuteronomy 4.12-13; 10.4).

This recognition of their covenant status is important (Exodus 34.28; Deuteronomy 4.13; 9.9, 11, 15; 29.1). Their love for, and responsibility towards, God comes before love for neighbour for the one stems from the other. Elsewhere this covenant is called ‘The Testimony’ (Exodus 25.16, 21; 40.20). It testifies to Yahweh’s love for His people and the covenant relationship they have with Him. But it also testifies to a man’s responsibility to his fellowman over a wide range of attitudes and behaviour, although the detail is left to be worked out later.

In the Book of the Covenant this Treaty is then expanded and it finishes with a specific application in treaty terms to what lies before them in the conquest of the promised land (23.20-33).

Excursus: The Giving of the Ten Words.

The first question that arises to many is how this compares with the ten words outlined in Deuteronomy 5. The first three commands there are almost word for word as in Exodus 20.3-7, with minimal differences such as we might expect in a speechified form.

The fourth commandment is the first in which, in Deuteronomy, we find Moses making clear and deliberate alterations. There are a number of them. ‘Observe’ is used in Deuteronomy instead of ‘remember’; ‘as Yahweh your God commanded you’ is added; special mention is made of the ox and the ass, instead of just the general ‘cattle’; and ‘that your man-servant and your maid-servant may rest as well as you’ is tacked on. The first in some ways makes little difference, for to ‘remember’ means to ‘observe’, and arises because it is a speech and he wants to make it more direct. But perhaps there had been a laxity in keeping the sabbath so that Moses wished to stress that it must not only be perfunctorily remembered but fully observed. All present would notice the change from the usual pattern of words. ‘Observing’ (regarding and carrying out fully) what Yahweh commands is a theme of Moses in Deuteronomy. (Six times in chapter 4, five times in chapter 5, five times in chapter 6, four times in chapter 7 and so on).

‘As Yahweh your God commanded you’ refers back to Exodus 20.8 where the command was originally given, and also to Exodus 16.23, 25-26 where it was first instituted. See also Exodus 31.13-16; 35.2-3; Leviticus 19.3, 30; 23.3; 26.2. This added comment demonstrates that this repetition of the covenant in Deuteronomy is very much in speech form rather than being a solemn declaration of the covenant. It is given with the purpose of pressing home its requirements. It is the covenant with comments added.

‘Your ox nor your ass.’ With regard to the special mention of the ass it may be that some had argued that the ass was not included in ‘cattle’ and was thus not to share the sabbath rest. If that was so then that false idea was being put right. But whether that was so or not, the ox and ass were the hardest workers of the domestic animals, so that he may have selected them for that reason. They were the workers. Like the servants they most deserved rest, which was something all must have, and Moses is stressing the need for the workers to be given rest. (The idea of the ox and the ass in Deuteronomy might have been incorporated from verse 17, or especially Exodus 23.12).

‘That your man-servant and your maid-servant may rest as well as you.’ This final item tacked on in Deuteronomy may also suggest that some had been lax in allowing full rest to men-servants and maid-servants, possibly lightening but not totally suspending their duties. Moses thus stresses that they must have the same rest as everyone else, so that they too may be able to fully rest and focus their minds on God as everyone else did. They especially should enjoy this symbol of the liberty which God gave to man.

The purpose then of these changes in Deuteronomy was to counter attempts to evade the full impact of the requirements. Additional sub-clauses were added there on the basis of his experience of their behaviour.

The most substantial alteration in Deuteronomy was the removal of the clause referring to creation and replacement of it by Deuteronomy 5.15 “And you shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore Yahweh your God commands you to keep the sabbath day.”

In Deuteronomy the reference to the men-servants and maid-servants leads him on to add this stress as to why this is so. It is because they should remember that they too had been ‘servants’ in the land of Egypt until Yahweh delivered them with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (compare 4.34). They had known what it was to slave without respite. They had known what it was to have no rest. But they had been delivered from this servitude by the hand of Yahweh. And He had exerted Himself that they might have rest. They should therefore have greater respect for their servants and ensure that both they and their servants fully ‘observed’ the sabbath day, and that the servants had full rest on that day.

Thus the reference to creation found here in Exodus 20.11 is omitted in Deuteronomy. This was presumably because Moses did not see it as necessary in that context when he was placing his emphasis on giving servants full rest. He was there concentrating on the purpose in hand. All knew that it was a God-revealed pattern concerning a day blessed by God. But in mind was the idea that Israel were now entering into their rest, and it was right therefore that all should enjoy the sabbath rest. His concern there was that they should learn their lesson from their deliverance. That is why it is their own deliverance that he stresses as the factor to be taken into account and not creation. He is stressing experience over against theory because he feels it would have more impact.

This may suggest that he saw the reference to creation here in Exodus as a secondary, explanatory subsection and not as the main clause in the covenant. As not being a requirement but an explanation. But against that is the fact that we would expect that in such an important foundational covenant we would expect some mention of Yahweh as creator of heaven and earth. Nevertheless he must have considered that to omit it was permissible on the grounds that it did not lessen the covenant requirement. To have included it in his speech in Deuteronomy would in fact have lessened the strength of his argument and blurred his point, while his silence about it drew clear attention both to it and to the alternative, for all would be waiting for the reference to creation and would be the more struck by its absence and by what he did say.

It should, however, be noted that the ‘addition’ made in Deuteronomy is not strictly ‘new’ external material but is simply incorporating the idea contained in the initial verse of the covenant, that Yahweh had delivered them from bondage. He is not ‘adding’ to the covenant, He is repeating the very basis on which it was founded.

So to ‘observe the sabbath’ would in future be not only to remember creation but also to remember the deliverance. From now on the two went together. The Sabbath had originally commemorated the giving of the manna (Exodus 16). It had then reminded men of the completeness of creation (Exodus 20.11). Now it included the deliverance rest. It celebrated God’s provision of both food, and life, and rest. For Christians the seventh day (which it is, whatever day it is celebrated on) commemorates the giving of the Bread of Life (John 6.35) Who feeds our hearts, and it commemorates our Great Deliverer Who through the cross and resurrection has brought about the greater salvation.

This suggests that it is possible to claim that the reference to creation is not in fact a part of what Yahweh originally said on the mount, but an explanatory comment added by Moses when he wrote it down, the kind of comment which in modern days we would include in brackets. Note with regard to this that it is in the third person and refers simply to Yahweh whereas everywhere else in these verses, apart from in verse 7 which may also be an added comment, reference is to ‘Yahweh your God’ which appears to be the covenant name, ‘I am Yahweh your God’ (Yahweh Eloheyca). Against this suggestion, however, is the fact that in such an important covenant we would expect some reference to Yahweh as Creator of Heaven and Earth.

In the case of the fifth commandment he adds in Deuteronomy ‘as Yahweh your God commanded you’ and ‘that it may go well with you’. These are the kind of typical asides that might be made in a speech in order to emphasise the point and in order to wish them well, for he knew that he would not be with them much longer. With the possession of the land now almost upon them these promises gained greater meaning. And they were a warning hint that if they were to enjoy the land permanently it could only be by a permanent keeping of the covenant, and that this would partly result from honouring father and mother as they learned from them the instruction of Yahweh. Long life and spiritual and material prosperity in the land would depend on it.

The sixth to ninth commandments are unchanged in Deuteronomy apart from the adding of a waw representing ‘and’ or ‘neither’. This is understandable in a speech where he is trying to run the clauses together, in contrast with the original desire here in Exodus for them to be stark commands.

Finally we note that as compared with Exodus 20.17 Moses in Deuteronomy alters the order and puts ‘wife’ before ‘house’, and separates her from the remainder, putting emphasis on her. This fits better with the forbidding of adultery coming before the stealing of property in the previous ‘words’. Moses may have seen the change as allowable so as to bring out the connection. At this stage in Deuteronomy perhaps, in the close proximity of the camp, there may have been too much adultery so that Moses was concerned to emphasise the necessity not to covet other men’s wives. Or it may indicate Moses’ deep awareness of the value and importance of his wife.

In Deuteronomy he also included ‘field’. Those in the two and a half tribes who were already settling in would by then have had fields that could be coveted. So all these changes express Moses’ current concerns at that time. But he would not have made the changes if he had been baldly ‘declaring the covenant’. He felt able to do so because they were part of his speech, so that he could put in the emphases that he wanted and add comments, just as a modern preacher might do. He was wanting to directly sway the people. We might consider that it was only Moses who could have dared to make such alterations. Later the text would have been seen as sacrosanct.

It is clear then that Exodus 20.2-17 is primary and represents the declared covenant, with there being a possibility that there are either one or two interjected comments made by Moses, while Deuteronomy 5 is very much speechified.

(End of Excursus).

The Proclamation of the Covenant (20.1-17).

Here we have Yahweh’s proclamation of His covenant directly to the people, and not through Moses, something which the people, having experienced it, pleaded that it might not happen again (verse 19). The fuller explanation then comes through Moses (verse 22). It will be noted that without being forced these verses cannot be put into chiastic form, stressing how they stand out from the remainder of the narrative.

20.1 ‘And God spoke all these words, saying.’

As promised in 19.9 Yahweh speaks to Moses from the cloud which is on the mountain (verse 16) in full hearing of the people, while Moses stands among them. With these words Israel becomes a nation in its own right, a nation with Yahweh as overlord. They become ‘a kingdom’, a theocracy where God is king, and they are designated to become a kingdom of priests (19.6). The scope of the covenant is huge and its moral content unique.

The people gathered there would include the mixed multitude who had left Egypt with the children of Israel. They too, if it was their desire, would be incorporated within the covenant (12.48). Thus they would all stand as one to receive His words.

The First Five Words - Attitude Towards God (20.2-12).

The basic principle behind these first commandments is a simple one. It is that Yahweh is supreme, and that to try to depict Him in any heavenly or earthly form would be to debase Him and misrepresent Him, because He is over, above and beyond all such representation, indeed such misrepresentation could only be seen as blasphemy. These requirements reveal Him as the active and powerful living God Who is over all, invisible and unlimited in any way and beyond representation. This latter fact is late emphasised by the mercy seat on the Ark where Yahweh will be seen as sometimes invisibly present.

Thus we may see the covenant as demonstrating:

• 1). That God is the Redeemer and Deliverer from the bondage of Egypt, thereby proving His superiority to what the nations saw as the mighty gods of Egypt (verse 2).
• 2). That God is not of this universe. There is no representation in heaven and earth that can depict Him (verse 4).
• 3). That He has deep concern (jealousy) that men should recognise His uniqueness (verse 5).
• 4). That He is the moral Judge of the world, calling all into account (verse 5-6).
• 5). That His Name, revealing His nature, is to be treated with the utmost reverence because of Who He is (verse 7).
• 6). That He is the Creator of Heaven and earth and all that is in them (verse 11).

We will now consider the covenant in more depth.

20.2 “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen.”

This is possibly to be seen as the first ‘word’. It is a typical overlord’s opening to a suzerainty covenant. It reveals His might, power and total sovereignty in all situations and represents to Israel why they owe Him submission. Egypt was the powerhouse among the nations. But this reveals that Yahweh had done His will there and that none had been able to stop Him. It is a declaration of supremacy.

Here Yahweh declares His name, ‘I am Yahweh Eloheyca (your God)’, followed by what He has done for His people. He has mightily delivered them from Egypt. He has set them free from slavery, and they therefore owe Him submission. It is a covenant declaration, and inherent within the covenant is that none could withstand Him and that He will continue to protect them.

‘The house of bondmen.’ The house of Jacob had been in bondage. They were thus a house of bondmen. So we may translate ‘from bondage.’ Or it may be referring to Egypt as ‘the slave-house’.

20.3 “You shall have no other gods before me.”

This may alternatively be seen as the first ‘word’ or it may possibly be seen as the initial part of the second ‘word’ depending on whether we see verse 2 as the first ‘word’. (They are called ‘the words of the covenant, the ten words’ - Exodus 34.28 - and there is good reason for including verse 2 among the ‘words’ as it is the crux of the covenant). Total loyalty to Yahweh as their overlord is demanded. All other concepts of the divine must be excluded. Thus Yahweh is to be all, and totally exclusive. This is then expanded on in verse 4.

‘Before me.’ Literally ‘before my face’. They live and walk before the face of Yahweh, and their lives and worship must be totally exclusive to Him. All other thoughts of the divine must be excluded for they are His people. The whole camp and people must be exclusively Yahwist without a trace of any other ‘divinity’.

20.4-6 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, nor the likeness of any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down yourself to them nor serve them. For I Yahweh your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me. And showing mercy to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

The forbidding of graven images of any kind in relation to God was unique and startling. But it established once and for all the uniqueness and otherness of God. The point was that He was not to be seen as earthly in any way, but as connected with the heaven of heavens. Nor was he limited in any way. For no form either earthly or heavenly could remotely depict Him. He was above and beyond having a ‘form’ of any kind (see Deuteronomy 4.15). The nations had made their gods mere supermen or superbeasts, tied to their own spheres, some earthly some heavenly, as men were to theirs. But God was God. He was over all and beyond all. Once He was depicted in any earthly form He would be degraded, He would become available to misrepresentation and the manipulation and control of men who became His keepers. He would have to be carried around on beast of burden or a cart! (Compare Isaiah 46.1-2). And this commandment applies as much today as it ever did. No physical likenesses whatsoever are allowed, for such likenesses diminish Him and misrepresent Him.

‘You shall not make for yourself --.’ Anything man makes for himself cannot be anything but earthly. It is made on earth with earthly material. And he makes it for his own benefit and becomes dependent on it.

‘Any form that is in heaven above.’ The ‘hosts of heaven’, including sun, moon and stars and sky gods are in mind here (compare Deuteronomy 4.19). God must not be linked with the skies. It was commonplace for great gods to be represented by heavenly bodies, which gave them a certain distinction. But it was not to be so with Yahweh. He was to be seen as over and above all heavenly things, which were all under His direct control (Genesis 1.14-18).

‘In the earth beneath.’ Any representation of man, beast or bird as representing God was forbidden. He was not to be seen as a nature God..

‘In the water under the earth.’ Fish gods, or water mammals, or reptiles such as the crocodile, were all seen as gods. But all were seen as inferior to Yahweh, nor could they even vaguely represent Him. ‘Under the earth’ that is, below the surface.

‘You shall not bow down yourself to them ----.’ To bow before an earthly image is forbidden, under whatever pretext. It is to become subservient to what is creaturely and, whatever the theory, leads to debasement (compare Romans 1.18-32). We bow only to the invisible God.

‘I Yahweh your God am a jealous God.’ This is the application to Yahweh of human language because we have none better, but as always when human language is used of God it must be heavily qualified. The idea behind jealousy is of exclusiveness and a desire to alone be the object of desire. But God excludes others because there are no others, not because He cannot bear rivals. He is jealous for the purity of the ideas of men and will not allow anything that could jeopardise those ideas. He is ‘jealous’ because He alone is of sufficient worth to be worthy of worship. And He will thus not allow any pretenders.

‘Visiting the iniquities of the fathers on the children ---.’ This is a fact not a threat. It is a warning that men realise that what they do, and what they believe, not only affects them but their children and their children’s children. And yet because God is over all, and behind all, and beyond all, it is His doing. For nothing happens without Him being aware, even if He is not directly responsible. He is the righteous Judge of all. So the idea is not that God takes it out on the innocent, but that they are not innocent because of the influence of their ancestor. However there is a proviso - ‘of them that hate me.’ If a man turn back to God He will not visit iniquity on him. He will show him mercy.

‘Showing mercy to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.’ There is not only the negative side but the positive side. God is good and delights in mercy. Those whose hearts are fixed on Him and who love Him and do what He demands will enjoy the fullness of His mercy. In a similar way overlords promised benefits for those who faithfully served them and punishment on those who did not.

Notice that love comes before obedience. God does not want a servile obedience but a loving response to His goodness which results in glad obedience.

‘To thousands.’ Possibly ‘to whole clans’ (root - ‘eleph’). This contrasts with the family effect of the iniquities of the fathers and demonstrates that God’s mercies outweigh His punishments.

That later Israel partly ignored, or more probably argued their way round these words, comes out in Judges 8.27; 17.4 on; 18.14 on. But it is significant that while large quantities of statues of the Canaanite mother goddess are found in later Israelite houses (which demonstrates they were syncretistic) statues of Yahweh are not found in abundance, if at all.

20.7 “You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain. For Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”

This is the third ‘word’. It is a warning that Yahweh is so holy, so ‘wholly other’, that to use His name lightly is sin of the highest order, for His name represents Himself. Just as to break through the bounds onto Sinai was to court instant death because of the holiness and ‘otherness’ of God, so to trespass on and misuse His name is the same. This injunction again is designed to bring out the unique holiness of God.

Whenever God’s name is used it must be used with the utmost seriousness and never lightly, for to bring His name into anything is to render the situation itself holy. In the end the Jews forbade the use of the name altogether, for they rightly recognised men’s propensities. But the same applies to the terms ‘God’ or Heaven’ or ‘The Blessed’, when they have become a ‘name’, as much as to ‘Yahweh’. This was what the Jews partly overlooked

To genuinely swear on oath in a serious situation is not to take His name in vain if the genuine intention is to speak as in the sight of God, for it honours God, recognising that the judge stands as God’s representative. But to do it lightly, whether in public or in private situations, is to take His name in vain, especially if the aim is simply to convince a person of the truth of a statement. It is this that Jesus objected to (Matthew 5.33-37). And to call in the name of God except in the most serious situations is also to use it in vain. God is not to be called in lightly, for He is the above and beyond, the ‘wholly other’.

‘Yahweh will not hold him guiltless.’ A way of stressing the gravity of the offence. On this point above all others a man can be sure he will be found guilty. (The use of Yahweh without Eloheyca may indicate that this is an added comment made by Moses when recording the covenant).

20.8-11 “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you will labour and do all your work but the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God. In it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and did no work on the seventh day. For this reason Yahweh has blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.”

This is the fourth word. It has been suggested that verse 11 (in the third person) may be a comment later added by Moses, for different words are used in Deuteronomy 5.15. But because in such an important covenant we would expect to find reference to God as Creator of heaven and earth, as well as Deliverer, substantiating His credentials, it is far more likely that it was an essential part of the covenant. It calls on His people to ‘remember’, that is, remember by observing it, the sabbath day. To keep it as a special day, a ‘holy’ day, one set apart for God’s purposes and on which to recognise that to do a mundane thing is to dishonour God. See especially Isaiah 58.13-14 which adequately interprets its purpose.

Primary among its principles is the principle of not working. This is to apply to all, male or female, master or servant, ass or alien. There are to be no exceptions. In a day when some were expected to work excessively the boon that the sabbath day was to them cannot be appreciated. Everyone had to have time for themselves and for God. General work in looking after flocks and herds would be permissible (not to milk them would cause great distress), but probably only so far as to ensure their welfare.

‘Sabbath.’ A day of ceasing from activity as Yahweh ceased from activity on the seventh day. It is a day ‘unto Yahweh your God’. On this day the curse of toil could be put aside. Thus sabbaths can be days for feasting (the preparation being done on the previous day) and worship. In this context the emphasis is on the seventh day Sabbath, but there were other ‘holy days’, other ‘sabbaths’ connected with feasts, not all so restrictive.

‘You shall not do any work.’ This includes ploughing and reaping (Exodus 34.21), pressing wine and carrying goods (Nehemiah 13.15), bearing burdens (Jeremiah 17.21); carrying on trade (Amos 8.5); holding markets (Nehemiah 13.15; collecting manna (Exodus 16.26); gathering wood (Numbers 15.32); and kindling fire for the purpose of boiling or baking (Exodus 35.3). But on the first day of unleavened bread, for example, it was permitted to buy food for the feast, and therefore to trade in such goods (John 13.29).

‘Within your gates.’ Reference is made in Exodus to gates of the tabernacle (27.16 and often) and the gate of the camp (32.26), and many gates in the camp (32.27). Thus it basically refers to an entrance way, whether into the camp or possibly into a large multi-occupied tent, as well as to the gates of cities. We may see ‘within your gates’ as meaning, ‘within your purview where you have jurisdiction’.

Notice that the cattle too had a right to rest. One noticeable thing about God’s Law was the concern that it showed for animals. In Genesis 8.1 God was concerned for the cattle in the ark. In Genesis 9.9-11 God’s covenant included the fowl, and the cattle, and every beast of the earth. In Jonah part of the reason why Nineveh was spared was because of its much cattle (Jonah 4.11). The ox should not be muzzled when treading the corn (Deuteronomy 25.4). Other laws were laid down protecting the rights of animals and birds (e.g. 22.30; 23.5; Deuteronomy 22.6), although it was recognised that they were to be available for food. This was unique in the ancient world where animals were little regarded except for their monetary value.

The stranger within their jurisdiction is mentioned last for he is not a member of the covenant community. But he must observe the Sabbath.

‘For this reason Yahweh blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.’ See Genesis 2.3. But it should be noted that there is no reference in Genesis 2.1-3 to the observance of a sabbath, or indeed to a sabbath at all, although the root of ‘sabbath’ does possibly come from the same root as ‘rested’. So the principle here is that just as Yahweh in His revelation concerning creation originally blessed the seventh day after six days of work because it was the day on which He ceased creation, so this is good reason for now seeing the seventh day in a series, possibly determined from the time when the Manna was first given (16.5), as holy and blessed, following the divine pattern. And its blessing is found in freedom from toil. It would ever in the future be a reminder that they had been freed from toil as bondmen in Egypt, and symbolic of the time in the future when the curse would be removed.

As we have seen the first known instance of observing the Sabbath is found in Exodus 16.23-30 where there is indication that it is a new observance to commemorate the first giving of the Manna, and almost certainly it could not be observed while slaves in Egypt. Here that observance is now made a part of the covenant between Yahweh and His people and linked with Genesis 2.3.

In view of the fact that Deuteronomy 5.15 adds different words from verse 11 to the commandment some have seen these words as a comment added by Moses in both cases (note the lack of Eloheyca (‘your God’) after Yahweh which is the normal pattern in this covenant). It is argued that he would hardly alter the divine word given at Sinai in such a way, for the divine word was written in stone. But we must remember that his purpose in Deuteronomy was to stress the importance of concern for low level servants. On those grounds therefore he probably felt that the fact of God as Creator, something well known to all Israel, did not need to be emphasised.

We should note further that in Deuteronomy 5.15 Moses states that the reason why Yahweh commanded them to keep the Sabbath day was not because of the seventh day of creation but because of God’s deliverance from Egypt. Then too there had been a cessation of work. This would tie in with its being commenced at the time of the first giving of the Manna. But for such a solemn covenant to have no reference to God as Creator would really be inconceivable.

20.12 ‘Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long on the land which Yahweh your God gives you.”

The idea of the honouring (among other things by obedience) of parents, although strong everywhere, was especially strong in patriarchal tribes. The whole basis of their society was founded on it. Without it the system would falter. To refuse to honour father and mother was to refuse to honour the tribe or to honour God. That is probably why this commandment is placed among the first group of five dealing with a man’s relationship to Yahweh. The father and mother stood in the place of God. Compare here Leviticus 19.3-4 where fearing mother and father, observing the Sabbath, and not turning to idols or making molten gods are on a par with each other as things which will make them holy as Yahweh their God is holy. They were special evidence that they were unique and set apart as His.

The reward for such filial obedience would be a long life in the God-given land that was yet to be theirs, for filial obedience would result in obedience to God’s commandments. Some see this as meaning that if Israel as a whole honour their parents then their occupation of the land will also be long. But it certainly includes long life for individuals (compare Deuteronomy 6.2; 22.7; and 1 Kings 3.14 where we find a good old age referred to as a special blessing from God), and the one basically includes the other. Honouring of parents contributes to length of days, and length of days is a sign of God’s blessing.

The Second Five Words - Man’s Responsibility Towards God For His Neighbour (20.13-17).

These commands are absolute. They reveal the sanctity in God’s eyes of a man’s right to fair treatment by his neighbour in all spheres of his life. They are apodictic in form, that is in the form of a direct command that must be obeyed. Later on penalties for breach of these commands will be outlined, but here the concentration is on what God requires and expects of His people. There is no lessening of that demand. It is sinful man who says, ‘what will happen to me if I do this?’ and God was requiring them not to be sinful.

Some commentators lay stress on the fact that these are negative commandments. But while that is true we must recognise what negative commandments are. What they are really saying is that Israel may live their lives freely and positively, although with the few exceptions then given. On the whole then the thought is positive. It is the exceptions that determine the wideness or otherwise of the rule, and these leave wide scope for positive living. The exceptions simply put certain limitations on excessive behaviour.

20.13 “You shall not murder.”

This commandment upholds the sanctity of human life. But as given it has nothing to do with killing in war (a different Hebrew word is always used for that) or the death penalty. Both were sanctioned in the detailed enactments of the Law (see for example Deuteronomy 20.1 on; Exodus 21.12-17). The principle of a life for a life held firm (21.23), although in the end it was deliberate premeditated murder that demanded the full consequences so that there was no sanctuary for such a murderer (21.14). The commandment meant no killing apart from judicial killing and the right to defend one’s own life and the lives of one’s family and people. But defence of one’s person or family or land from those who would themselves kill or capture was considered good reason within the law for killing. So was protection of property where the killing occurred during the process of the theft, especially at night (22.2).

It was therefore recognised that a family had a responsibility to avenge the death of a another member of the family. It was a life for a life. That is why ‘cities of refuge’ were arranged where those who had killed, but not deliberately, could flee for protection. No one could be slain in a city of refuge, but the ‘avengers of blood’ had the right to ask for their expulsion if they could prove that they were guilty of deliberate murder.

The forbidding of killing necessarily included the forbidding of the intent to kill, as the principle behind the tenth commandment brings out, and Jesus expanded this to include destructive anger and contempt against another (Matthew 5.21-22)

20.14 “You shall not commit adultery.”

This commandment upholds the sanctity of the marriage relationship. To make love to another man’s wife or betrothed was absolutely forbidden. Later this would be expanded to allow the death penalty for the offence (Leviticus 20.10), but we need not doubt that it was already so. It was seen as expunging evil (Deuteronomy 22.22). The wife too was to be put to death, and a betrothed woman if she was a willing participant (Deuteronomy 22.22-24). This was on the basis that while a wife would not be away from the protection of her husband, a betrothed may be. There were lesser penalties where the woman was not married or betrothed because then the sealed marriage bond was not broken. Marriage and betrothal were seen as resulting in a sacred bond.

20.15 “You shall not steal.” This commandment upholds the sanctity of a man’s property. To obtain a man’s property by false means was forbidden. Penalties were, however, less than for murder and adultery (see 22.1-4) unless the theft was of a human person, a kidnap (21.16). This, of course, applied to property within the community.

It must be remembered in all these cases that there were no reliable prisons. It was death or fine, and in the case of murder or adultery a fine was not seen as sufficient. These cases struck at the very heart of God.

20.16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.”

This commandment especially upholds the sanctity of the courts of justice. It refers to giving false testimony in a court of law, or in any situation where a man’s life or reputation could be at stake. If proved the punishment was that which the innocent man would have suffered had he been found guilty, which could include death (Deuteronomy 19.16-21). But it also includes the attacking of another by lies (Proverbs 6.19). The thought is that dishonesty that harms another, whether by libel or slander or whispering, is abhorrent to God.

20.17 “You shall not covet your neighbour’s house, you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbour’s.”

This reaffirms the sanctity of a man’s wife and possessions. It is in fact the corollary of all that has been said. All the previous commandments have dealt with men’s actions. Here God probes to the heart, the spring from which the actions come. A man is not even to consider attempting to take such things away from his neighbour. Such an attitude of heart and mind is against the covenant. This remarkable law applies personally and inwardly. It could often not be judged by outsiders. But each person was to recognise that it would be judged by God. God would know. It reveals that every man is responsible for his thoughts as well as his actions. The positive side will later be ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Leviticus 19.18). God is inculcating an open and honest attitude towards one’s neighbour without deceit or guile or envy, because in the end all belongs to God and He gives as He will.

For it is not only the object of coveting who can be hurt by coveting. Coveting hurts the coveter. It is destructive of all that is good. It proceeds from and distorts the heart, causes unrest and trouble within, and produces sin, which comes to completion in the act (James 1.14-15). Achan was the perfect example of how coveting takes possession of a man by stages. ‘I saw -- I coveted -- I took’, and it finally destroyed him (Joshua 7.21). Proverbs 21.26 contrasts the greedy coveter with the generous giver, the one totally inward looking and turned in on himself, the other outward going and generous and open. The coveter ignores God’s requirements and God’s word, ‘incline my heart to Your testimonies, and not to covetousness’ (Psalm 119.36). Hebrews summed it up in another way, ‘Be content with such things as you have’ (Hebrews 13.5, compare Luke 3.14; Philippians 4.11; 1 Timothy 6.6). The one who is content is at peace, but the coveter finds no rest. Indeed covetousness is described as a form of idolatry (Ephesians 5.5), and keeps a man from God (1 Timothy 6.10).

‘“You shall not covet your neighbour’s house, you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife --.’ A man’s house and wife were of equal importance as against the rest, as is proved by the fact that they were the only two governed directly by a verb. His house was his possession in the land and included his land. It was the mainstay of his family life. It was his inheritance. His wife was a part of himself. But in the end all that truly belonged to him was sacrosanct.

Note that this is the only commandment where the verb is repeated. In a sense it parallels the verbs in ‘you shall not bow down to them nor serve them’ (20.3). It has double intensity. Such was God’s warning against covetousness.

Then the voice ceased.

The Aftermath (20.18-21).

This passage immediately follows the glorious and awesome experience that has been theirs in the proclamation of Yahweh’s covenant. The people are trembling in fear, and are not sure that they can bear any more such experiences of Yahweh. So in it Yahweh gently brings them down to earth and assures them that that they need not be afraid.

We can analyse it as follows:

• a The people are awed by the splendour and glory and move and stand far off (20.18).
• b The people promise that they will obey God but plead that they may no longer be required to experience the awful voice of God (20.19).
• b Moses assures them that they need not fear. The reason that Yahweh has given them this experience is so that they recognise the awfulness of sinning against Him (20.20).
• a The people stand far off and Moses draws near into the thick darkness. Their request is answered (20.21).

Note the reversal in ‘a’ of the people awed by God’s glory and moving to stand far off with, in the parallel, the people standing far off and Moses entering to meet with God in thick darkness so that the people are shielded from His glory. In ‘b’ the promise to obey is paralleled with the awfulness of not obeying but of sinning against God, while their plea is responded to by Moses’ assurance.

20.18 ‘And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, and when the people saw it they stood afar off.’

It would appear that the people heard the thunder but did not understand what God had been saying. We can compare with this John 12.28-29 where again the voice was heard but the people did not understand. But they were very much aware of the external signs. They heard the thunder and the trumpet sound, they saw the lightning and the smoke (compare 19.16). And they were afraid. Those who had been growing bolder now cowered back trembling, and drew away. They no longer wanted to climb the mount.

We note that at this stage no response is required to the covenant. They have already made their choice in response to a shortened form of the covenant (19.8). Now the more detail has been laid out with no choice available, although final response will come later once they know the full terms (24.1-11).

20.19 ‘And they said to Moses, “You speak with us and we will listen. But do not let God speak with us or we die.” ’

So great was the effect that they no longer wanted even to hear the voice of God. They were terrified and pleaded to be spared such an ordeal. Rather let Moses be God’s mouthpiece. They did not want to go through another experience like the one they had just been through. For their fuller speech see Deuteronomy 5.24-27.

The use of the term God is significant. It is the awesomeness and the otherness that has impacted on them. They recognise that they are dealing with the God of all things.

20.20 ‘And Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid, for God has come to test your obedience and so that his fear may be before you so that you do not sin.” And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.’

Moses tried to calm their fears. He pointed out that the purpose of God in what they had experienced was to test their obedience, whether they would respond to His covenant or not, and to make them aware of His awesome presence so that they would not fall short of His requirements. If they obeyed Him they would have nothing to fear. This was Yahweh’s third ‘proving’ of their obedience. Compare 15.25; 16.4, each connected with the proving of obedience.

‘That His fear may be before you.’ God wanted them ever to remember what they had seen of His awesome presence so that fear and awe of Him might be constantly before them lest they treat His words lightly. He was giving them every chance.

‘The people stood afar off.’ They no longer wanted even to approach the mount, and retired to the entrance to their tents (Deuteronomy 5.30). This was in stark contrast to Moses who advanced into the thick darkness to meet with God.

‘Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.’ For Moses was unafraid. He responded to God’s command and entered God’s temporary abode. For thick darkness compare Deuteronomy 4.11; 5.22 where the cloud is mentioned separately. Thus it would appear that He was enveloped in the ‘smoke’, possibly misty vapour.

Expansion of the Ten Words of the Covenant (20.22-23.33).

In this section, which is composed of elements put together mainly in chiastic form (see later), Yahweh expands on the Ten Words of the covenant. Notice that it begins with ‘and Yahweh said to Moses’. This proceeds as follows:

• a Instructions concerning future worship in obedience to the commandments in 20.3-5, for He will be with them and record His name in places where they go (20.22-26).
• b Instructions concerning bondservants remembering the manservants and maidservants in mentioned in 20.10 (21.1-11).
• c Instructions concerning those who cause death or injury and those who dishonour their parents in obedience to 20.12-13 (21.12-36).
• d Instructions concerning a neighbour’s goods in obedience to 20.15, 17 (22.1-15).
• d Instruction concerning the forcing of virgins, who belong to their families, which connects with 20.14, 17 (22.16-17).
• c Instructions concerning wrong attitudes which connect with wider implications from the words of the covenant, which include some for which the penalty is death, and the need for avoidance of dishonourable conduct (22.18-23.11).
• b Instructions concerning the Sabbath (compare 20.8-9) and the regular feasts (23.12-19).
• a Yahweh’s resulting promise that His Angel will go with them until the land is theirs, finishing with a warning against idolatry (23.20-23).

We should note here that in ‘a’ the approach to and worship of Yahweh is in mind, and His recording of His name in places as they go on their way, and they are warned against idolatry, and in the parallel the Angel of Yahweh is to go with them and they are warned against idolatry. In ‘b’ we are instructed concerning bondmen and bondwomen and in the parallel the Sabbath is dealt with which, in the announcing of the covenant, contained reference to the rights of menservants and maidservant (20.9). The bondmen also had a right to enjoy a seven year sabbath. It may be this connection which decided the positioning of this law prior to those concerning murder and theft. In ‘c’ we have reference to death and violence, while in the parallel death is the sentence for some of the crimes mentioned. In ‘d’ we have reference to misappropriation of people’s goods, and in the parallel misappropriation of their daughters.

Yahweh’s Instruction Concerning Future Worship (20.22-26).

In view of their fears, and the commands that He has given in 20.3-5, Yahweh now makes provision for their worship. They are to recognise what they have seen of His heavenly nature (23) and, avoiding earthly non-gods, realise that they must not try to climb to heaven by having steps to their altars and thus expose themselves for what they are (26). Rather they are to use basic natural materials through which to worship Him, whether of earth or unhewn stone. But they are only to do this in the places where He records His name, and there He will come and bless them.

These promises are basic to their future welfare and their special distinction comes out in that 21.1 makes a slight separation of this ‘law’ from the ones that follow. The others deal with behaviour towards men until we come to the Sabbath and the feasts. This deals with behaviour towards God and covers the first two commandments.

We may analyse this as follows:

• a Yahweh declares His heavenly nature. They are therefore not to make ‘with Him’ (that is in comparison to Him) gods of silver and gods of gold. Such might seem impressive but they would in fact be degrading. They are not compatible with what He is (20.23).
• b Rather they are to make an altar of earth on which to offer their offerings and sacrifices (20.24a).
• c And that only in all the places where He records His name. Then He will come and bless them (20.24b).
• b While if they build their altar of stone it must be of unhewn stone, for any tool of theirs could only pollute it (20.25).
• a They are not to go up steps to His altar lest their nakedness be discovered on them (20.26).

Note that in ‘a’ it is the false gods who are laid bare for what they are, they are simply an attempt to bring God down from heaven, in the parallel it is the false worshippers who are laid bare and a ban is put on their attempt to go up to the gods. In ‘b’ we have the requirement that the true altar be of earth, or in the parallel of unhewn stone, in other words of natural material not shaped by man. Central in ‘c’ is that all worship is only to be in the place where He records His name, for it is there that God will bless them. God chooses where men will worship Him, not man. This anticipates the requirements of Deuteronomy 12.

20.22-23 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “This is what you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen that I talked with you from heaven. You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, or nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.’ ” ’

Yahweh wants to remind the people through Moses that, although they had not understood His words, He had spoken to them from heaven. Whether Moses has yet told them of the content of His words we do not know. But Yahweh now gives further instruction to back up the covenant and warns them to take heed to the lesson of Who and What He is. He has spoken to them from heaven. Gods of silver and gods of gold might seem impressive but they must recognise them for what they are, earthly and ineffective. They are made to put on a show but are worthless underneath. Thus they are incompatible with Him. It is quite possible that He knows that what they have seen at the mount has interrupted ideas for false future worship which have been lingering in their minds. So He confirms the position immediately. He is dealing with one of the major problems that would continually face them, and that was rooted in many of their hearts. Many would never feel quite at home without idols to lean on. Idols required no effort, were morally undemanding and helped to satisfy their need to worship without interfering in their lives.

‘You shall not make gods of silver to be with me.’ Consonant with the words of the covenant about graven images in 20.4 He commands them not to make gods of silver nor gods of gold to stand alongside Him in the cult (‘to be with me’). Perhaps He saw festering in their mind thoughts which showed they were already planning to do so. They certainly will do so soon (32.1-4). But He wants them to be reminded that He brooks no rivals and will not stand for graven images. This repetition was the double confirmation that revealed the seriousness of the ban.

Some think that many Canaanite images at this time were coated with silver or gold, and such images would have been known to them in Egypt for Canaanite worship was conducted there. Thus the special warning against gold and silver idols.

20.24-25 “You will make for me an altar of earth, and will sacrifice on it your whole burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and I will bless you. And if you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones, for if you lift your tool on it you have polluted it.”

If they have in mind to worship Him, rather than making silver and gold images they must build an altar made of either earth or unhewn stones, natural materials just as they are, without embellishment or pretence. What they worship through is not to be something made by man’s artifice or which man’s tools have touched. Nothing that they make can be worthy of Him or rightly depict Him. It must be made of materials in their raw state as God made them. And there they may offer their whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

We must take our warning from this that the more ornate the means by which we approach God, the less likely they are to result in genuine worship. We begin to be more aware of our surroundings than we are of God, and to limit God to physical things.

But this making of an altar must only be done under His instruction at each place (maqom, compare its use in Deuteronomy 12) where He causes His name to be remembered. Then He will come to them and bless them. This follows the principle established by the patriarchs and followed by Moses (Genesis 12.7, 8; 13.18; 22.9; 26.25; 33.20; 35.1-7; Exodus 17.15). At this stage they are on the move. There is no central sanctuary apart from the camp sanctuary. But note that they may not publicly worship just anywhere, only in ‘the places’ that He chooses.

‘Whole burnt offerings and peace offerings.’ The former were wholly burnt up as a sacrifice to Yahweh (the word means ‘that which goes up’), the latter could be partaken of at a feast after they have offered the blood.

‘If you lift your tool on it you have polluted it.’ Anything man made or fashioned cannot reflect the ‘wholly other’. He is not of this world and therefore anything used in His worship must be in its raw state as God made it. Compare Joshua 8.31-32 where this is strictly applied.

Thus does He bring home the lesson against idolatry and any man made aid to worship.

20.26 “Neither shall you go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not discovered on it.”

Canaanite and other altars were often built on raised platforms (‘high places’) and had to be approached via steps. They may well have seen these as representing the mountains of the gods and seen themselves as entering there. But this is not to be so with them. A simple earthen or stone altar on the level ground is all that is required. For they cannot enter into heaven itself to worship God, and therefore such an attempt would be futile. Thus they must not build altars with steps, and ‘go up by steps to My altar’.

‘That your nakedness be not discovered on it.’ Any such attempt would be the utmost foolishness. It would result in their total nakedness being uncovered. This probably refers back to Adam and Eve who ‘knew that they were naked’ before God. In other words in their rebellion their whole lives were revealed to God. The same may happen to the children of Israel if they seek to climb into heaven or enter into the world of man-made images, of false religion and of idolatry. They will become naked before Him.

But the thought includes the fact that climbing the steps to the high place will literally reveal their nakedness before God. It would not be showing respect to God. Thus in 28.42 the priests are to wear linen breeches to hide their nakedness. But even in this the idea of nakedness before God would include the thought of man’s sinfulness being uncovered. That was why man’s nakedness was now a shameful thing. The two ideas went together.

Note for Christians.

It is often asked in what relationship the Christian stands to the covenant made at Sinai. The answer lies in considering what kind of covenant this was. For the covenant at Sinai was not a covenant of Law, it was one of grace. God did not approach His people on condition that they would agree to follow Him. He carried out His saving act through love and mercy, and then called them into His covenant as an act of love (Deuteronomy 7.6-8), in the same way as today, having carried out His saving work in Jesus Christ, He calls us into the new covenant through His blood (Mark 14.24). And just as they responded, so must we respond, and will respond if we have been chosen by Him.

The ten words revealed what God was like and what God required. They are just as binding today as they ever were, and Jesus made clear in Matthew 5 that His disciples were expected to fulfil them. But the point that God stresses, and that was equally true for Israel then, is that neither they nor we can be saved by obeying them. Rather we receive them, just as they did, because we have been saved. In their case their salvation was expressed through offerings and sacrifices, and the ministry of their priests, and by a mighty physical deliverance. In ours because we have a better sacrifice and a better High Priest Who has made for us a way back to God, our salvation is revealed by that. But once we are His we are as much bound to do His will as Israel was. What Paul was arguing against in Galatians 3 was not the covenants as God had given them, but the covenants as they had come to be seen by men. So from a heavenly point of view we are bound by all God’s covenants, made with man because of His love for His own, but from an earthly point of view we are not bound by man’s interpretation of them. Indeed Paul countered them by quoting the words of the covenant (Galatians 3.13).

So yes, we are responsible to keep all God’s covenant, except in so far as any of it has been superseded, and then it is not that we do not keep it, but that we keep it in its better fulfilment. We do not see ourselves as requiring to be circumcised, because we have been circumcised in Christ. We do not see ourselves as bound to offer the sacrifices because our great High Priest has offered the greater sacrifice on our behalf. We do not look to earthly priests because we have one great High Priest Who fulfils all necessary priestly functions on our behalf, apart from the functions of prayer and praise which He calls on all who are His to perform (Romans 12.1-2; Hebrews 13.15; 1 Peter 2.5, 9). We do not carry out the harshest prescriptions of the Law because they have been tempered with mercy and we have new ways of punishment which were not available then. But we still recognise the guilt of them and that they must be punished at the last.

We do not intend therefore to comment separately on the regulations that follow for the principles that lie behind them, and their applicability to all men, is clear.

End of note).

Further Covenant Provisions (21.1-23.33).

21.1 “Now these are the judgments that you will set before them.”

Having made known His covenant, and having established how they must approach Him, Yahweh now provides detailed treatment on particular cases. These are mainly in the form of case law (casuistic) based on specific examples, with an occasional reference to apodictic law (direct command from God - a rare form of law outside Israel probably mainly restricted to patriarchal societies). The first example is of Hebrew bondmen and Hebrew bondwomen. This demonstrates that a good number of such must have come out of Egypt attached to Israelite families, and it shows Yahweh’s concern for those who were now in bondage as Israel had been in Egypt. Other law codes put slaves well down in the list. They were of little account.

Law codes were fairly common in the Ancient Near East. There were the laws of Ur-nammu of Ur, Lipit Ishtar of Isin (2100 BC), the laws of Eshnunna and of Hammurapi of Babylon (1750 BC) as well as Hittite law codes and considerable written material dealing with casuistic law. They were not comprehensive and by no means dealt with all circumstances, even common ones such as arson. Perhaps some of them reflected rather changes in the law. Thus like Biblical law there were gaps which were covered by custom rather than code. Indeed the law codes were rarely quoted in court. Whether they were for the use of judges or simply a propaganda exercise is a matter of debate. Possibly a little of both. The difference in Israel is that their laws were promulgated by God, and in the end enforceable by Him.

The covenant provisions that follow are carefully gathered into groups, mainly following a chiastic format.

Regulations With Regard to Slaves and Violence To Fellowmen (21.2-27).

It is always difficult to appreciate the ancient mind and its working, but there is a case here for seeing a chiastic pattern in 21.2-27, especially in the light of clearer examples elsewhere. We may analyse it as follows:

• a Dealings with a Hebrew slave (21.2-6).
• b Dealings with a daughter sold with a view to marriage and childbearing, if buyer does not marry her he must compensate (21.7-11).
• c Manslayers to die but a way of escape if innocent (21.12-13).
• d If a man slays with guile he is to be put to death (21.14).
• e He who smites father and mother to be put to death (21.15).
• f Kidnappers to be put to death (21.16).
• e He who curses father and mother to be put to death (21.17).
• d If one who contends smites another and he does not die he must pay costs (21.18-19).
• c Slayers of servants by beating to be punished, but escape if there is delay in dying (21.20-21).
• b Striving which hurts a woman and affects childbearing to be punished, but if the wife dies he shall die (21.22-25).
• a Dealings in respect to injury to slaves (21.26-27).

Thus ‘a’ and its parallel contrast dealings with slaves, ‘b’ and its parallel contrast dealings with women affected by a man’s behaviour, punishment depending on result, ‘c’ and its parallel contrast manslayers of nativeborn and slave but with a possible way of escape depending on circumstances, ‘d’ and its parallel simply contrast a manslayer with a possible manslayer, ‘e’ and its parallel contrast behaviour towards father and mother. The build up of it all around ‘f’ brings out the heinousness of kidnapping in ancient eyes.

These laws probably expand on those already established by Moses (15.25). As time went by expansion would always be necessary.

Regulations Concerning Hebrew Bondmen and Bondwomen (21.2-21.11).

It must be seen as quite remarkable that this coverage of the detail of the ‘judgments’ of the Law from 21-23, begins with these regulations concerning Hebrew bondmen, even prior to those dealing with the fact of the taking of human life. It demonstrates God’s care for the weak and vulnerable, but probably arises because of the mention of menservants and maidservants in the fourth ‘word’ concerning the Sabbath. ‘Hebrews’, if we associate them with the Habiru, had no protector, only God. They were a no-people. And thus His people must have His attitude towards them, for God is the God of the under-privileged. God is saying here, ‘before we consider the details of My commandments regulating your behaviour to each other, let us consider these who are a no-people without protection. Because you are my people you must care for the weak, and vulnerable, and helpless’. They were not only not to make them work on the Sabbath, they must grant them a Sabbath at the end of their term of service.

Alternately we might see that the emphasis here is on the problem of a wife married to such a person while serving in an Israelite household, the question being as to what her position is. The answer given here is quite clear. She must not be taken outside the covenant. If the Hebrew man goes out he goes out by himself, unless he brought his wife with him. If he wishes to retain a wife whom he has wed in an Israelite household he must himself remain within the covenant.

This passage may be analysed as follows:

• a If a Hebrew bondman is bought he serves for six years and in the seventh goes out free for nothing (2)
• b If he come in by himself he goes out by himself. If he be married (when he comes in) then his wife shall go out with him (3).
• c If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons and daughters, the wife and children shall be her master’s and he goes out by himself (4).
• b If the bondman plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out free’ (5).
• a Then he is brought to God and his ear pierced and nailed to the door or doorpost and he will serve him for ever (6).

Note that in ‘a’ the bondman goes out free for nothing, in the parallel he binds himself to his master and does not go out because he loves master, wife and children. In ‘b’ his wife whom he brought with him goes out with him, but in the parallel he remains for the love of his wife whom he has married while in the Israelite household. It may be argued that the central point is ‘c’, that a wife given to him while he is in an Israelite household may not go out with him, for that would be for her to be lost to the covenant.

21.2-4 “If you buy a Hebrew bondman he shall serve for six years and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he come in by himself he shall go out by himself. If he be married then his wife shall go out with him. If his master give him a wife and she bear him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out by himself.”

At first these provisions seem a little harsh. But further consideration reveals their logic. Firstly we must consider what is probably meant by a Hebrew bondman.

Early Israel never thought of themselves as ‘Hebrews’. That came much later. They were called Hebrews by outsiders and would refer to themselves as Hebrews when speaking to outsiders, but it was not a name they ordinarily applied to themselves (see Genesis 14.13; 39.14, 17; 41.12; Exodus 1.15-2.13). Abram was ‘the Hebrew’ to the people who composed the covenant described in Genesis 14. Joseph was a Hebrew in Potiphar’s house and to the chief butler. The children of Israel were Hebrews to Pharaoh. But in all cases the description related to outsiders. It is not a name that Yahweh would apply to them or that they would apply to themselves in internal affairs.

But the reason foreigners saw them as ‘Hebrews’ was because they saw them as landless and stateless like the Habiru. These Habiru had a long history but in all cases they were landless and stateless (although at some stage some settled down just as Israel did). They could be mercenaries, slaves, shepherds, miners etc. but they stood out as belonging to no country. This was why Israel were seen as Habiru by others, (although it is possible that much later they themselves then took the name and altered it to ‘Hebrew’ in their writings to connect back to their ancestor Eber, making it respectable, although there is a slight difference etymologically).

This being so the Hebrew bondman who is in mind is such a person, a landless and stateless person who has been bought into regulated bondage by an Israelite. He is a person of no status. It is quite probable that there were many such ‘Hebrew’ bondmen among the children of Israel, for they had been in Egypt where such bondmen would be available, and poverty would have brought others to that situation.

There were a variety of different forms of service in Israel (and among their neighbours). Putting it at its most simple these included hired servants, debt slaves who had to work of a debt by a period of service, and people who entered into a bond to perform service for a certain period in return for an initial payment or a guarantee of a livelihood or some other basis of obligation (bondsmen). The Habiru often survived in this way so that ‘a Hebrew bondman’ probably means that this man was taken on as a Habiru. Then there were foreign slaves who were purchased or captured. Their position was permanent. And so on. Leviticus 25.39-41 says that no Israelite must be enslaved by another Israelite. He may be purchased but he must be treated as though he were a hired servant and released in the year of yubile. There the idea was of a semi-permanent ‘slavery’ situation, but somewhat ameliorated because the person was an Israelite. That is different from here for this is a recognised seven year contract.

Note first that here the Hebrew bondman can only be bound for six years (in a seven year contract). Apart from a captive in war no outsider was to be ‘enslaved’ for more than six years. We are told later that this is because the children of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and should therefore remember and be merciful as they have received mercy (Deuteronomy 15.12). Then he is to go out free for nothing, and is to be well provided for (Deuteronomy 15.13-14). If he brought his wife with him she is a ‘Hebrew’ woman and can therefore go out with him. But if he is married to someone (who is probably not ‘a Hebrew’), whom he has received from his master, then he goes out alone. He cannot take his wife and children outside the covenant community to share his statelessness. They belong to Yahweh and must therefore remain within the community. They remain with their master, to be released in due course depending on their status.

It is significant in this regard that at Nuzi we learn that Hapiru there similarly entered into limited servitude, a servitude similarly limited to seven years, after which their obligation ended. Israel was to be more generous. Theirs was also to be a seven year contract but they were to give him the seventh year free so that his obligation finished after six years, thus taking into account the principles of the Sabbath year. So the seven year contract for Hapiru/Habiru seems to be a general custom of the time. As Deuteronomy points out this was double the normal length of service for an Israelite (Deuteronomy 15.18). Three years are the years of a hired servant (Isaiah 16.14).

The principle that the wife remained behind was merciful for two reasons. Firstly such a wife may find the life of a ‘Hebrew’ hard to bear, and secondly if she went she might be removed from Yahweh’s mercy in the covenant. This was a possibility that could not be allowed.

But the Hebrew slave was faced with an alternative. If he loved his wife and wanted to remain with her there was a course of action he could take. He could become an ‘ebed ‘olam (a perpetual henchman), regularly someone of value and importance. Such slaves were known from elsewhere and are mentioned at Ugarit. This might also especially appeal to an older person without family, or someone who might find it difficult to build a life on the ‘outside’. They would have a place for life in a satisfactory environment, loving and being loved.

21.5-6 “But if the bondman shall say plainly, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children. I will not go out free’. Then his master shall bring him to God, and will bring him to the door or to the door post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever.”

In order to keep a wife obtained within the covenant community the Hebrew must become a member of the covenant community for ever. Thus he must declare his love for his master, his wife and his children. The love for the master may be to him a secondary matter in real terms if he loved his wife but to the Law it was important that the idea be maintained. It must not be seen as forced on him, for he has the choice. Then his ear is pierced to the tent pole or door post and he becomes a bondman for ever.

‘Then his master shall bring him to God.’ Possibly a priest had to be called in (at this time probably a head of family) to oversee the ceremony so that all was done in his presence as representing God.

The piercing of the ear would result in the shedding of blood, and the blood sealed the covenant. Furthermore he is brought to the door. This would at this stage be the door of the tent. Later when they received the land of promise it would be a door with door posts. And the awl is then passed through the ear and into the tent pole or door post (Deuteronomy 15.17). This might be seen as symbolising his permanent attachment to this home. But from then on he is a bondman for ever.

If this seems harsh we must remember that such a person may have nowhere to go, and he would thus be exchanging an uncertain future for a certain future with a good master. That it is conceived of as a possible choice demonstrates that such a life was not necessarily one of continuing harshness. Such a slave could well be beloved. But no genuine Israelite would wish to be a bondman for ever, for at the year of yubile (soon to be established - Leviticus 25.13) his family land would be returned to him, which argues against this referring to an Israelite.

While this seems to be a form of slavery it is so by choice. The initial contract was a normal commercial contract and his keep and any benefits he obtained were his wages, and the contract gave him security.

However, we must point out that many commentators see this Hebrew bondman as being an Israelite in bondage for his keep, although it is difficult to see in this case why there should be this unusual mention of ‘Hebrew’. Why not an Israelite bondman? In this case the provision regarding wife and children is purely a commercial one. They do not go out with him because they still belong to their master. And in this case also he can choose to become a permanent bondman.

Provision in Respect of A Woman Sold To Be A Slave Wife.

The remaining provisions protected a woman sold to be a slave wife permanently and were necessary for her. It meant that she could not be discarded when older. It will be noted that this system allowed a form of divorce. It was not really God’s purpose, but controlled a system that already existed because of the hardness of their hearts.

We may analyse this as follows:

• a A woman bought with promises of marriage could not be treated in the same way as other bondservants (7).
• b If she does not please her master who has espoused her to him, then he must let her be redeemed (8).
• c He must not sell her to a other than her own family (to a strange people) (8).
• c If he espouse her to his son he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters (9).
• b If he takes for himself another for wife, her food, her clothing and duty of marriage he shall not diminish (10).
• a And if he do not these three to her then shall she go out for nothing without money (11).

  In ‘a’ reference is made to a woman bought with promises of marriage, in the parallel it is stressed that if not rightly treated she is to go out free, without cost. In ‘b’ we have the situation where the man, although having betrothed her to himself, decides that he will seek another wife. In that case she must be returned to her own family at an agreed price. A betrothed woman was seen in most respects as already married to her betrothed, thus this is tantamount to a divorce. In the parallel, where the man as an alternative marries another wife he may not keep the slave wife and diminish her portions. She must be treated in all respects as a true wife. In ‘c’ He must not sell her to others (the purchase was so that he could marry her and he is restricted to that). In the parallel he may marry her to his son.

  21.7-11 “And if a man sell his daughter to be a female bondservant she shall not go out as the male bondservants do. If she please not her master who has espoused her to him, then shall he let her be redeemed. He shall have no power to sell her to a strange people seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he espouse her to his son he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he takes for himself another for wife, her food, her clothing and duty of marriage he shall not diminish. And if he do not these three to her then shall she go out for nothing without money.”

  The contrast with ‘the male bondservants’ (verse 7), which presumably looks back to the previous verses, suggests that we are here dealing with a Hebrew woman sold by her father for the purpose of marriage. The corresponding situation in Nuzi was that a Hapiru may sell his daughter either conditionally or unconditionally. If sold unconditionally the sale was outright. (With Israel the regulations in respect of bondmen and as in Deuteronomy 15.12-17 would then apply). If sold conditionally it was so that the girl should be adopted into the family of the purchaser, with a marriage situation in view. Thus at some stage they would have a responsibility for arranging her marriage. This is the example in view here.

  If the master espouses the girl to himself and then finds that she is not pleasing he must allow her to be redeemed, probably to be bought back by her father at a mutually agreed price which was reasonable taking into account the poverty which had caused the original sale. He must be willing to suffer loss because he has dealt with the girl deceitfully. He may not sell her on to a strange people (that is, someone not of the family circle). Alternately it may mean that she could be sold to another Israelite, but not to a foreigner, thus keeping her within the covenant. But this seems less likely and would not really be redemption.

  The alternative was that he may espouse her to his son. In this case she must be treated as a proper daughter.

  If he marries her and then takes another wife he must treat her properly. He must not reduce her food and clothing, nor may he refuse her her conjugal rights.

  If he does none of these things he must let her go free at no cost. She is to be released immediately. This proviso supports the view that the possible redemption is by the impoverished father. If no agreement can be reached the master gets nothing, a good incentive to reaching a reasonable agreement given all the circumstances.

  The importance of this law for us today is that it lays down a principle, the principle of fair treatment for those for whom we are responsible as employers or hirers. It emphasises that we are to treat them better than others do, and must not manipulate them.

  Regulations in Respect of Extreme Violence to Another (21.12-21).

  The following regulations all deal with extreme violence towards others. This came first in matters to do with behaviour towards each other.

  We may analyse this passage as follows:

  • a Manslayers to die but a way of escape if innocent (21.12-13).
  • b If a man slays with guile he is to be put to death (21.14).
  • c He who smites father and mother to be put to death (21.15).
  • d Kidnappers to be put to death (21.16).
  • c He who curses father and mother to be put to death (21.17).
  • b If one who contends smites another and he does not die he must pay costs (21.18-19).
  • a Slayers of bondservants by beating to be punished, but escape if there is delay in dying (21.20-21).

  In ‘a’ manslayers are to die if the slaying was deliberate, in the parallel bondservant slayers are to be punished if the slaying was seen as deliberate. In ‘b’ to slay a man by guile was to be subject to the death penalty, but in the parallel where the person does not actually die costs must be paid. In ‘c’ the one who smites father and mother must be put to death, in the parallel the one who curses father and mother is to be put to death.

  21.12-14 “He who smites a man so that he die shall surely be put to death. And if a man does not lie in wait, but God delivers him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. And if a man come presumptuously on his neighbour, to kill him by guile, you will take him from my altar that he may die.”

  For the deliberate murderer there was only the death penalty (there were no prisons in which he could be incarcerated long term). For such there could be no refuge. Even if he sought sanctuary at the altar (compare 1 Kings 2.29 with 31) it would do him no good for his blood guilt deprived him of the right. But in the case of an accidental killing a place will be provided to which that person can flee. Initially this would be to find sanctuary at the altar until satisfactory recompense could be found. Later on places would be provided called Cities of Refuge (Numbers 35).

  The penalty would be carried out by the avengers of blood (Numbers 35.19). These were members of the same family as the victim (compare Genesis 4.14; 9.6), theoretically at least acting on behalf of the community. It was their responsibility to bring a murderer to justice. But, if the killer sought refuge, vengeance could only take place once the courts had agreed that the killing was deliberate (Numbers 35.24-27).

  ‘God delivers him into his hand.’ That is, the death was accidental. It is ‘an act of God’, not deliberate. This law brings out the sanctity of human life. The deliberate intent to kill cannot be excused.

  21.15 “And he who smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”

  In a patriarchal society the leader was father of the clan, and then authority went downwards to the fathers of sub-clans or family groups until the lowest authority was reached, the father of the family. Each was seen, within his sphere, as standing, as it were, along with his wife, in the place of God. That is why the command to honour father and mother received such prominence (20.12). To smite such was like striking a judge or even God. It was to hit at recognised authority and demanded the death penalty. By this the authority of the parents was firmly established. It is the principle that is important. Not every father would demand the death penalty for his son, circumstances would be taken into account.

  In the Code of Hammurapi a son who lifted up his hand against his parents was to have his hands cut off.

  21.16 “And he who steals a man, and sells him, or if he is found in his possession, he shall surely be put to death.”

  This refers to kidnapping. The enforced illicit enslavery of people within the community was punishable by death. That this is the central statement in the chiastic arrangement demonstrates its importance. Hittite law judges kidnapping more severely than murder. It was quite clearly looked on with horror.

  21.17 “And he who curses (reviles) his father and mother shall surely be put to death.”

  This is on the same principle as verse 15. The word for ‘reviling’ or ‘cursing’ is very strong, far stronger than just grumbling or complaining about, or even railing at. For the word see, for example, 2 Samuel 16.5; 2 Kings 2.24; Genesis 12.3; 8.21. It suggests intention to do grievous harm. This is spoken of someone rebelling against all authority.

  21.18-19 “And if men contend and one smites the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he does not die but is laid up in bed, if he gets up again and walks out using his staff, then he who smote him will be free of any charge, only he will pay for his loss of time from work (literally ‘for his ceasing’) and ensure he is fully healed.”

  Where men have a disagreement, injury caused which is serious enough to put one in bed for some time must be compensated for, but as long as the wounded person is not permanently bedridden, that is all that is required. The victim must not suffer financial loss for it and the aggressor must pay his medical bills.

  In the Code of Hammurapi the aggressor has to take an oath that he did not intend to kill and must compensate for loss of time. Hittite law requires that a third party be paid to do the injured man’s work.

  ‘With his fist.’ The word for ‘fist’ is rare (here and Isaiah 58.4) and may indicate a tool or instrument.

  21.20-21 “And if a man smite his bondman or his maid with a stick, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding if he continue alive for a day or two he shall not be punished. For he is his wealth.”

  Vicious treatment by a master of a bondman with a stick that might cause death is to be punished where death results within a day or two. That this punishment is usually death is not stated but might be suggested by the fact that this law is placed among laws which continually relate to the death penalty, which cease at verse 23 (but see verse 29 also. However redemption is possible there). Possibly it depended on the level of provocation which could be considered by the judges.

  Otherwise, if the bondman survives for two days and then dies, consideration is given to the fact that the master has lost his services for good, which has cost him the equivalent in silver. The fact that the man does not die immediately suggests that the death was not intended. Permanent injury such as loss of an eye or a tooth will result in the bondman being released (verses 26-27).

  Other law codes outside Israel have less concern for bondmen. They are more concerned about compensation to the master if an outsider wounds the bondman. So this is outstandingly humane for the time and treats bondmen as human beings and not as mere chattels.

  Regulations Concerning the Causing of Injury (21.22-27).

  This may be analysed as follows:

  • a Where a pregnant woman loses her child in a fight but the woman is not brought close to death (no mischief follows) then the man will be fined as determined by the court.

    b If the woman is badly hurt or dies the punishment will be in accordance with the injury life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (22-25).

  • a Where a bondservant or bondmaid are fairly badly injured, for example by losing an eye or losing a tooth, they must be given their freedom (26-27).

  Here the two examples in ‘a’ and its parallel, where there is injury but not injury that brings close to death, are both built around ‘b’.

  21.22-25 “And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, and yet nothing serious follows, he will surely be fined if the woman’s husband lays a charge against him and he will pay as the judges determine. But if anything serious follows then you will give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

  A man who is deemed to cause a miscarriage in a woman who is not his wife, as a result of a tussle with another man, is liable to a fine, the amount of which will be decided by the judges on the facts of the case. But only if nothing more serious develops. The hurt is seemingly physical so somehow she must have become involved in the fight, either deliberately or accidentally.

  ‘Lays a charge against him.’ Literally ‘according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him’. This could mean the husband helps to decide the penalty (compare verse 30). But the judges have the final say.

  But if the injury is more serious then he will be punished according to the level of the injury. The purpose of this law is to ensure people pay special attention to pregnant women and are more careful when they are around, and reminds them of their special vulnerability. It teaches us concern for pregnant women.

  ‘Eye for eye, ------ stripe for stripe.’ This is clearly a technical statement, regularly quoted, covering all situations. It is thus quoted here in full even though only a part could apply to the case. Deuteronomy 19.21 quotes the first part only, while Leviticus 24.20 applies a part specifically to the case in question.

  The principle (called later ‘the lex talionis’) was widespread in early societies and widely accepted. It put a limit on how far people could go in seeking revenge for injury while satisfying their sense for justice. It was not always strictly carried out and often other compensation was accepted instead. But it did act as a brake on excessive revenge.

  The principle behind all these laws is the recognition of the sacredness of human life in God’s eyes, and the concern that punishment be in accordance with the seriousness of the crime and not be based on revenge. The circumstances under which we live may be different but the same principles of justice can be applied.

  21.26-27 ‘And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondmaid, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he knock out his bondman’s tooth or his bondmaid’s tooth, the shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.’

  The punishment for permanent injury to a bondman or bondwoman is the cancellation of the bond. The man or woman goes free.

  Regulations For Injuries In Connection With Beasts (21.28-35).

  In this section there is a very basic chiasmus:

  • a Punishment for the goring of a man or woman (21.28-32).
  • b Punishment in respect of a beast falling into an open pit (28.33-34).
  • a Punishment for the goring of a beast (21.35-36).

  21.28-31 “And if an ox gore a man or a woman and death results the ox will certainly be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten. But the owner of the ox shall be free from blame. But if the ox was in the habit of goring previously, and the owner had been told, and he had not kept it in, with the result that it killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid on him, whether he have gored a son or have gored a daughter, it shall be done to him according to this judgment.”

  A man is not to be blamed for an unexpected attack by an ox even though death results. The only punishment is the slaying of the ox by stoning. It has been rendered blood guilty. Furthermore its meat could not be eaten. It belonged to God in reparation. But if the ox had a reputation for goring people and the owner had not restricted it, then the owner is guilty of manslaughter if it kills someone, and must be put to death. There is, however, in this exceptional case the possible alternative of a ‘ransom.’ (Presumably because the killing was not the direct action of the owner - compare Numbers 35.31-32 where no ransom is allowed for a deliberate manslayer).

  ‘If there be laid on him a ransom.’ There is the alternative that the owner can pay a ransom fixed by the court and save his own life. He can be redeemed by the payment of a price. The choice as to whether a ransom can be accepted possibly rests solely in the hands of the court, but it may require the consent of the family of the deceased who may help to fix the level of the ransom (compare verse 22).

  ‘The ox will certainly be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten.’ The guilty animal must in all cases be put to death. And because it is blood guilty its flesh cannot be eaten. This may partly be due to the fact that being deprived of any benefit from the oxen is the sole punishment in some cases of the owner. But it is also a recognition that killing is an evil beyond all evils. The killer is marked off as solely in the hands of God, to be dealt with as He will. It is tabu.

  In the Law Code of Hammurabi it was laid down that when an ox killed a man nothing needed to be done, but if it killed a man and was known to be dangerous then a fine should be paid. Life was not seen as quite so important there.

  From our point of view there is a warning here about being concerned for the safety of others. These laws build up a background of righteous behaviour that can be applied to many situations. As we study them we learn from them the principles on which they are based, fairness, thoughtfulness and responsibility.

  21.32 “If the ox gore a bondman or a bondwoman he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.”

  In this case the ransom is fixed because thirty shekels is the price of a bondman so that there is no argument.

  The principle lying behind these laws is that of the responsibility of an owner for anything he owns which is dangerous. He is responsible to ensure that it can cause no harm. And secondly that blame should not be attached for what could not be foreseen.

  21.33-34 “And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls in it, the owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to their owner and the dead beast shall be his.”

  A man is responsible to safeguard any pit, well or cistern that he has dug or opened, for they should be covered. So if an ox or ass falls into them he must make recompense, but keeps the carcass. The principle is that someone should not lose through another’s negligence. It reminds us today that God is concerned about our being concerned for the fate of others, including animals.

  21.35-36 “And if one man’s ox hurt another’s so that it dies, then they will sell the live ox and divide what is obtained for it, and they will also divide the dead one. Or if it is known that the ox had a tendency to gore in the past, and his owner has not kept him in, he shall surely pay ox for ox and the dead beast shall be his own.”

  Where there is accidental loss through a misbehaving ox any loss is divided between the two parties, but where the misbehaving ox already had a reputation for goring, the owner should have kept it under control, therefore he is responsible for any loss of the innocent party. He does, however, receive the dead animal and can sell its hide. It seems that at this stage the meat could also be eaten or sold.

  Leviticus 17.15-16 expresses disfavour at the eating of such an animal that ‘dies of itself’, either by homeborn or stranger, but as long as the blood is not eaten it only renders the person unclean, a position to be remedied by ritual washing and waiting until the evening. But Deuteronomy 14.21 forbids such food to God’s people because the people are holy to Yahweh. It may, however, be given to ‘strangers’ or foreigners. But no specific consequence is outlined. Both therefore express disapproval, any seeming contradiction probably depending on the type of ‘stranger’ in question, whether temporary, semi-permament or permanent, or on the fact that Israelites were ignoring the law so that it had to be tightened up.

  The code of Hammurapi and the Hittite Laws have fairly similar regulations to these above and what follows. Such laws were required in all farming communities. These laws teach us that we have a responsibility to ensure that what we have is not a danger to others and that we must be fair in our dealings, making compensation when it is our fault.

  Regulations Concerning Farming Theft and Damage (22.1-15).

  Here we have five main paragraphs which begin with ‘if (ci) a man’ or ‘if (ci) a fire’ (English text verses 1, 5, 6, 7, 10), and a number of subparagraphs commencing with ‘if’ (’im), but in all cases there is no introductory ‘and’. Our analysis, however, includes the subparagraph commencing at verse 2 separately because of its distinctive nature.

  • a If a man steals beasts and kills or sells them he must heavily compensate for his theft up to five times (22.1).
  • b If a thief break in at night and be smitten and die there is no punishment. If a thief break in by day he must not be killed, rather double restitution may be demanded and if necessary he be sold to pay the debt (22.2-4).
  • c If a man’s beasts eat another’s fields by accident he shall make restitution (22.5).
  • c The commencer of an accidental fire shall compensate for corn burned (22.6).
  • b If a man is keeping his neighbour’s possessions and it is stolen the thief if found must pay double. If not found and there is suspicion of theft by the neighbour they may come before God for judgment and if found guilty he shall pay double (22.7-9).
  • a If a man is keeping his neighbour’s beasts and they be stolen from him he shall make restitution. If it just ‘disappears’ the owner will accept the oath of Yahweh that he has not stolen it and there will be no restitution. If it is torn by beasts, production of the torn beast will avoid the need for restitution (22.10-13).

  It will be noted that in each case with its parallel ‘a’ refers to beasts stolen for which there must be compensation, ‘b’ refers to where a thief steals and must pay double, ‘c’ are two examples of accidental damage for which there must be restitution.

  22.1-4 “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox or four sheep for a sheep. If the thief be found breaking in and be smitten so that he dies there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him. If the sun be risen on him there shall be blood-guiltiness for him. He should make restitution. If he have nothing then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox or ass or sheep, he shall pay double.”

  When a thief breaks in at night, whether to a tent, a house or an animal enclosure, any resulting harm to him is his own fault. The owner cannot know his intentions and cannot be held blood guilty for killing him. But if it is by daylight this does not apply, except of course in defence of himself or his family, as the owner is more aware of who it is and what is going on and knows what threat he is facing. The requirement then is that the thief make restitution.

  In all cases a thief who is caught must make restitution. If he kills or sells a stolen animal the restitution is fivefold. If the animal is still alive it is twofold. If he cannot make adequate restitution pay then he can be sold to pay the debt.

  There is a principle here that among other punishments a thief should pay recompense to his victim. There is also the clear distinction between killing a thief because he is a threat to life, and killing one in anger, the one being allowed the other being forbidden.

  22.5 “If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall let his beast loose and it feed in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own vineyard.”

  This regulation clearly assumes fruitful fields and vineyards. However they would have had such in Egypt and would have the same again in the land flowing with milk and honey. The regulation was no doubt already a recognised custom and as such is included here as a promise of the certainty of what is to come as they anticipate their future. God is not just providing regulation for this ‘short’ wilderness journey. He wants them to think of the future that is in view and to look forward to it and have confidence in it, not to think only in the short term. It is an earnest of the promised land.

  The word for vineyards (kerem) is used in Arabic to represent a field cultivated with particular care, and that may be the case here.

  Note that restitution is made from the best of his own fields. There is to be no argument about the quality of the lost grain. We may not have fields or vineyards, but there are two principles here, responsibility for damage caused which is our fault, and the need for proper and full compensation.

  22.6 “If fire break out and catch in thorns so that the shocks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field be consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”

  Here a man who starts a fire is responsible for any damage it does. The ‘thorns’ are probably the thorn hedges that divide fields from each other. Thus, while burning in his own fields, he has been careless and allowed the hedges to catch on fire which in turn have spread the fire to the neighbouring fields. Alternately the brushwood in his field may have caught fire and spread it to the neighbouring fields. Full restitution is to be made, presumably again from the best in his fields. We are to take responsibility for our actions.

  22.7-9 “If a man shall deliver to his neighbour silver or stuff to keep, and it be stolen from the man’s house, if the thief be found he shall pay double. If the thief is not found then the master of the house shall come near to God to see whether he has put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing of which one says, “This is it,” the cause of both parties shall come before God. He whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbour.”

  The case here is where someone has entrusted silver, goods or livestock to his neighbour for one cause or another, and the neighbours claims it has been lost or stolen. If the thief is caught there is no problem. He has to pay back twice the value of what he stole.

  But if no thief is caught then the question is as to whether the receiver of the goods is being honest. He may therefore be required to ‘come near to God’, through Moses or a deputy, or, later, the priests. This may involve his having to swear a solemn oath before God as to the truth of the situation (verse 11).

  However, if the other party points to something and say, “This is it,” but cannot prove it to everyone’s satisfaction, the only answer then is to let God resolve the issue. ‘Come before God.’ In this case both parties come before God, that is approach God through Moses or his deputies, or later through the priests. In this case both may be required to swear an oath of Yahweh (verse 11), or the decision might be made by oracle from God (especially while Moses was alive), or by use of lots (compare 1 Samuel 14.41), probably through Urim and Thummim (Numbers 27.21; 1 Samuel 28.6). The aim is partly to frighten any guilty party into admitting the truth and to resolve the matter finally. The guilty person knows that Yahweh will know the truth. In this last case recompense is made to the innocent party of twice the value of what the guilty party sought to steal.

  22.10-13 “If a man deliver to his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it die or is hurt or is driven away with no man seeing it, the oath of Yahweh shall be between them both as to whether he has not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods, and its owner will accept it and he shall not make restitution. But if it be stolen from him he shall make restitution to its owner. If it is torn in pieces let him bring it as a testimony; he shall not make good what is torn.”

  The idea here would seem to be that the neighbour has taken responsibility for looking after the animal, presumably being rewarded for doing so. One difference between the case here and that in verse 9 is that here the owner does not specifically claim ‘this is it’, pointing to another animal. Thus the oath before Yahweh is to be accepted.

  There are three possible eventualities. 1) that the animal has been hurt, or has died naturally or has disappeared without anyone knowing how, and the neighbour denies that it is his fault 2) that it is known that it was stolen because there is evidence to that effect. In this case the neighbour should have kept better care of it and has been negligent, 3) that the animal has been torn to pieces by wild beasts. ‘If it be stolen’ must refer to where the theft is somehow testified to, as against the cases where it just ‘disappeared’ because driven away with no man seeing it. In the former case restitution must be paid, but in the latter no restitution is required. The suggestion would seem to be that he should have prevented it from being stolen. It was his job. But that he could not be blamed for something unwitnessed, because no one would really know what had happened. Where it is torn in pieces by a wild beast no restitution is required, but the evidence is required (compare Genesis 31.39; Amos 3.12). This would prove that the keeper was on the alert.

  ‘The oath of Yahweh.’ An example where the use of God’s name is allowable in determining the just position before the court. Compare Hebrews 6.16.

  In all these cases the background is that the neighbour is originally doing a good turn to the owner who has asked him to care for his property or is doing it for pay. Where the neighbour borrows the goods or beasts the situation is different.

  Two Further Commandments (22.14-17).

  Both these verses begin with ‘and if’, differentiating them from the previous section. They deal with borrowing and enticement and stand on their own.

  Borrowing From A Neighbour and The Enticement of a Virgin (22.14-17)

  These two examples go together because the first deals with borrowing a beast, the second with ‘borrowing’ a daughter.

  • a If a man borrows some beast from his neighbour and is unable to restore it in its proper condition, he must make restitution (14).
  • b If its owner is with it or of it is hired he need not make it good, for the owner must accept responsibility for caring for what is his, and the cost of hire takes into account the risks of loss.
  • b If a man entice a virgin who is not betrothed and lie with her (and thus ‘borrows’ her without permission, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife. She shall be recompensed and treated as though her father had agreed to it, the appropriate dowry being paid.
  • a If her father utterly refuse to give her to him he shall pay silver according to the dowry of virgins. In other words he must make full restitution for what the father has lost.

  Note that in ‘a’ restitution is made for loss, and the same is true in the parallel. In ‘b’ there is a contrast, for in the first ‘b’ the borrowing is by agreement whereas in the second it is not. In the second case the father was neither there nor ‘hired’ her out. Thus in the first case the loss must be borne, in the second the woman has to be taken into account and must be made an honest woman.

  22.14-15 “And if a man borrow anything from his neighbour, and if it is hurt or dies its owner not being with it, he shall surely make restitution. If its owner is with it he shall not make it good. If it is a hired thing it is reckoned in its hire.”

  In the case of borrowing restitution must be made for loss unless it was lost while the owner was in charge of it. But in the case of hire it is assumed that the insurance against loss is included in the hire so that no restitution is required.

  22.16 “And if a man entice a virgin who is not betrothed and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife. And if her father utterly refuse to give her to him he shall pay silver according to the dowry of virgins.”

  The unmarried daughter is seen as totally subject to her father, who takes responsibility for her welfare. If the man is seen as suitable he pays the dowry price and marries her. He seemingly has no choice in the matter. By his act he has basically chosen to marry her. But if the father objects then the man still has to pay the marriage dowry because the father will now have difficulty in marrying his daughter to someone else and thus loses the benefit of the marriage dowry.

  The marriage dowry is mentioned only in Genesis 34.12 and 1 Samuel 18.25 but was well known elsewhere. It was paid to the father at the time of betrothal.

  In the case of rape the dowry is later fixed at fifty shekels of silver and the man must marry her and cannot ever divorce her (Deuteronomy 22.28-29). Where the virgin is betrothed the penalty is death (Deuteronomy 22.23-27).

  Sundry Regulations (22.18-23.9).

  The regulations that follow are mainly apodictic, direct commands made specifically by God requiring total obedience. As such they are not paralleled in the law codes.

  Regulations Concerning Unacceptable Conduct - Three Deadly Sins And Two Calls For Compassion (22.18-24).

  The opening ‘and’ in verse 21 may suggest that verses 18-20 are connected with it. If this be so we may have an interesting chiasmus:

  • a A sorceress not to live (18).
  • b A beast not to be lain with (19).
  • c Other gods not to be sacrificed to (20).
  • b A resident alien not to be wronged 21).
  • a A widow and fatherless child not to be afflicted (22-24).

  In ‘a’ the sorceress is in contrast with the godly widow. The sorceress is powerful and is out to cause harm, an must therefore be put to death. The widow is helpless and harmless and must therefore not be harmed in any way. In ‘b’ the contrast of the beast with an alien is interesting, reflecting the fact that men often saw ‘foreigners’ as sub-human. The Egyptians despised all who could not speak Egyptian, and saw them as inferior beings. But while sexual association with a beast was punishable by death, association with a resident alien was acceptable. He/she was not to be harmed in any way. Love is not to be shown to a or b (or indeed c), whereas love is to be shown to the parallel b and a. If this be so there is a contrast of what is to be avoided and what is to be cared for.

  Three Deadly Sins (22.18-20).

  These three sins represent contact with alien spheres which are so unseemly that they warrant the death penalty; dealings with sorcery (the occult, the world above man), sexual relations with beasts (the world below man) and sacrificing to false gods (the world of demons). All involved moving into spheres outside man’s jurisdiction. Those who involve themselves with such things are to be put to death. They take man from his proper sphere.

  22.18 “You shall not allow a sorceress to live.”

  This refers most specifically to one who weaves charms and spells, in other words to what we tend to think of as white witchcraft, although witches can be more virulent. Using enchantments and practising divination by omens was considered to be on a parallel with the eating of blood which was strictly forbidden (Leviticus 19.26).

  The use of magic which sought to control higher occult powers for personal purposes was widespread in the ancient world, both in Egypt and especially in Babylon and Assyria. Nineveh was described as ‘the mistress of sorceries’ (Nahum 5.4, compare Isaiah 47.12-13). The code of Hammurapi and Assyrian law both prescribe the death penalty for it where used harmfully. It was also widespread among the Canaanites, and Jezebel was looked on as a sorceress (2 Kings 9.22). Examples of what is condemned are given in Deuteronomy 18.9-12. The condemnation includes not only witches but spiritualist mediums, tarot cards, ouija boards, planchettes etc. because these are ways of seeking to consult ‘familiar spirits’ (Deuteronomy 18.11 and compare Leviticus 19.31; 20.6). The word ‘wizard’ is always paralleled with those who have familiar spirits.

  The fact that reference is to a sorceress demonstrates that the practise, in Israel’s experience, was more widespread among women, but see Leviticus 20.27. Consider Ezekiel 13.18-23 for examples. The penalty was death. Such things were (and are) not to be treated lightly. The severity of the sentence suggests that such activity has an unusual virulency and is not just superstition. It is positively evil, and takes men and women into spheres which are harmful to them.

  22.19 “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death.”

  Such bestiality was common in the ancient world, and generally abhorred. It was practised among the Canaanites (Leviticus 18.23-25). Hittite law prescribes the death penalty except where a horse or mule was concerned (horses were highly regarded among the Hittites). It is absolutely forbidden by God and the death penalty follows. It is the opposite of reaching into the occult. It is diminishing men and women to being but beasts, and denying the image of God in man.

  ‘A beast.’ Generally used of domestic animals but it includes all animals of every kind.

  22.20 “He who sacrifices to any God, save to Yahweh only, shall be utterly destroyed.”

  Sacrificing to any god or goddess is absolutely forbidden on pain of death. Yahweh alone is to receive worship. ‘Utterly destroyed.’ The word means ‘devoted’, that is, handed over to God and doomed to destruction. Contact with such ‘gods’ was seen by Moses as being involvement with demons (Deuteronomy 32.17).

  These are three things on which there is a total ban, the practise of magic and seeking guidance from the spirit world, bestiality, and the worship of idols, for they take man outside his true sphere into spheres which are God-forsaken.

  Regulations Concerning The Unprotected (22.21-24).

  These regulation are in contrast with the first three. Here the emphasis is positive, because resident aliens and widows were not to be seen as like sorceresses, indulgers in bestiality and idolaters. This may include the veiled warning against a racism that saw in a resident alien all that was bad, or the assumption that old widows who lived by themselves were sorceresses or witches.

  22.21 “And a stranger you will not wrong, nor shall you oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

  Israel are to show love and concern for ‘strangers’, that is resident aliens, remembering how they had once been the same. It was all too easy to see the stranger as a threat or a menace in some way, or even as the equivalent of ‘beasts’. But Israelites must beware how they behave towards them, for unless such do misbehave they are watched over by God. They are not to be seen as outside Israel’s sphere, and despised because of their not being in the covenant, and thus to be rejected and ill-treated. For they may even opt to come within the covenant. We too should have a concern for those who are from foreign parts, remembering that they may feel lost and lonely.

  There is constant reference in the Pentateuch to the fact that Israelites should learn from their own miserable and heartrending experience to show concern for others, for they too had been ‘strangers’, had been bondmen, had had to work on unceasingly (23.9; Leviticus 19.34; Deuteronomy 5.15 related to Exodus 20.8-11; Deuteronomy 10.19; Deuteronomy 15.15 related to Exodus 21.2-11). We too, as they, should learn from our experiences to have concern for others.

  22.22-24 “You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to me, I will surely hear their cry and my anger will grow hot and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless.”

  Those who have no protector can look to God for their protection. The widow and the fatherless child have none to watch over them. They are therefore God’s special concern. It was all too easy to see them as under punishment from God because of their misfortune, and therefore as those for whom none need be concerned. But it was not to be so. Those who harm them in any way will suffer God’s anger and the result will be that they will be slain, leaving their own wives as widows and their own children as fatherless. God is applying here the judgment of like for like (the lex talionis).

  ‘I will kill you with the sword.’ This injunction is remarkable in that those who disobey it are warned of God’s direct intervention. Like the law against coveting it cannot always be dealt with in court and so will be dealt with by the great Judge Himself. The warning is that God will then withhold His own protecting hand. The group or nation that ignores its needy will receive what it deserves. ‘Kill with the sword’ involves brigands or invading forces and therefore God’s direct action by bringing violence against them.

  God’s concern for widows and orphans and ‘strangers’ and those who are defenceless comes out again and again throughout the Bible (Deuteronomy 10.18; 14.29; 24.17, 19-21; 26.12-13; 27.19; Psalm 68.5; 146.9; Proverbs 15.25; Isaiah 1.17; 10.2; Jeremiah 7.6; Zechariah 7.10; Malachi 3.5; James 1.27). It reminds us that God sees how we behave towards the weaker members of society.

  Regulations Concerning Creditors And The Poor (22.25-27).

  In both examples the creditor is to show compassion to the debtor. The examples are too few for a chiasmus.

  22.25 “If you lend money to any of my people among you who are poor, you will not be to him as a creditor, nor shall you lay on him usury.”

  This is not dealing with business interest as a fair return on capital. It refers to exploitation of poor people by charging them interest when ‘helping’ them in their need. God expects that His people will help the needy. He also expects that they will not seek to gain from it.

  ‘You shall not be to him as a creditor.’ That is, pursuing him relentlessly until he has paid his debt. ‘Nor lay on him usury.’ That is, charge him interest.

  22.26-27 “If you at all take your neighbour’s outer garment as a pledge, you shall restore it to him by the time the sun goes down. For that is his only covering. It is his garment for his skin. In what will he sleep? And it shall be that when he cries to me I will hear, for I am gracious.”

  A man who has to pledge his own basic clothing is poor indeed, for it is essential to his well-being. Thus the essential outer garment must only be used as a short term pledge, within the day. It must not be required as a long term pledge, for it is as essential to him as his skin, and protects his skin, especially in the cold of night. Amos 2.8 speaks of breaches of this commandment. Of what use then is the pledge? It prevents him pledging it again to someone else.

  ‘When he cries to me I will hear.’ As with widows and orphans the poor are God’s special concern, allowed on earth that we may do them good, and He will be directly involved in dealing with those who mistreat them. Man’s responsibility for his fellowman comes out strongly in these verses, it is man who has been appointed as God’s agent to run the world and he will be responsible for any failure to do it properly, and that includes us.

  ‘For I am gracious.’ The word is often paralleled with ‘merciful’. It refers to God as not acting towards us as we deserve but in kindness and love.

  The principles behind these provisions apply to us all. They are that God is concerned about the needy and helpless and that we should be equally concerned.

  Regulations About Duty to God (22.28-31).

  Again we might discern a pattern as follows:

  • a Not to revile God or ruler (28).
  • b Not to delay offering firstfruits of corn and vintage (29a).
  • c The firstborn of their sons to be given to Yahweh (29b).
  • c Firstborn of ox and sheep to be given to Yahweh (30).
  • b Israel to be holy to Yahweh (31a).
  • a And is not eat torn flesh but must cast it to the dogs (31b).

  Note that in ‘a’ God and the rulers are seen as worthy to be treated with reverence, while torn flesh is seen as unworthy and to be treated with scorn. Furthermore reviling God is in the parallel compared with eating torn flesh. Both are an insult to God and depict someone not in the right with God. The dogs contrast with the rulers, rulers must be reverenced, dogs are despised. In ‘b’ there must be no delay in the offering of firstfruits, in the parallel they must not delay in recognising that they have offered themselves. Alternately we might link the firstborn of beasts with Israel’s holiness, paralleling the firstfruits of corn and vintage with the firstfruits of beasts. In ‘c’ both types of firstborn are to be given to Yahweh. There is also a forward movement, contrasting those who revile authority with those who through offering their firstfruits and firstborn become holy to Yahweh and are thus not of those who eat what is unclean and thus dishonour God.

  22.28 “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.”

  The two thoughts are in parallel. The ruler stands in the place of God. As such, to curse or revile him is to curse or revile God. And to revile God in any way is to commit the greatest of sins (compare Leviticus 24.15-16). How careful we should be in our dealings with those whom God has set over us. Note the use of ‘God’ rather than ‘Yahweh’. The emphasis is on authority not covenant relationship. In contrast Israel are to be holy to Yahweh, not only regarding His authority but walking in covenant obedience.

  The thought in this verse is of our stance in relation to authority. Authorities, while they are acceptable authorities, are to be treated with respect because of the position that they hold under God as Creator. The people as a whole may replace them, but while they are there, their position deserves respect even if they do not.

  22.29a “You shall not delay to offer the abundance of your fruits and of your liquors.”

  Literally in the Hebrew ‘to offer the abundance of your fruits and of your liquors’ is strictly, ‘your fullness and your trickling ‘. Both nouns are rare but what is in mind is the offering of firstfruits. Later, and possibly even at this stage in the light of Genesis 28.22 (compare Genesis 14.20), this is a tenth (Deuteronomy 14.22-29; 26.1-12).

  It may refer to fullness of harvest and trickling of the vintage. Deuteronomy 22.9 refers to ‘the fullness of your seed’ in contrast with the vintage. However, in Numbers 18.27 ‘fullness’ is used of ‘the fullness of the winepress’ and some have seen the ‘fullness’ as the vintage and the ‘trickling’ as oils. Either way it is an expression of gratitude and recognition that all belongs to God.

  But the principle point is that these are firstfruits which belong to Him and are to be made holy to Him.

  ‘Liquors’ or ‘trickling’. A word unknown elsewhere. In Jeremiah 13.17 a word from the same root means to ‘shed tears’. Thus it probably means some form of liquid or liquid movement.

  22.29b-31a “The firstborn of your sons you will give to me. You will do the same with your oxen and with your sheep. Seven days it will be with its dam, on the eighth day you will give it to me. And you shall be holy men to me.”

  This reflects 13.2, ‘sanctify to me all the firstborn --- both of man and of beast’. The principle of the redemption of the firstborn of man has already been laid down in 13.12-13. The principle of the eighth day parallels circumcision (Genesis 17.12). On the eighth day the firstborn of the ox or sheep is sacrificed as given to God (compare Leviticus 22.27-33), the firstborn of man is circumcised as given to and belonging to God, and redeemed by the offering of a sacrifice.

  Note that here (verse 31) and in Leviticus 22.32 these ideas are directly linked with the holiness of God’s people. The offering of the firstborn is the sign that the people are holy to God, separated to Him and His special people. And the people must continually be holy to Him like the offered firstfruits.

  ‘You (plural) shall be holy men to me.’ The commands, which have been in the singular as addressed to each Israelite, are now completed by a statement which is in the plural. But a glance will show that the change was necessary for the sense. It is the holiness of the people as a whole, as represented by the men, that is in mind, because their firstborn have been consecrated to Yahweh. This is the opposite of reviling God, and consonant with those who gladly offer their firstfruits.

  22.31b “Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field. You shall cast it to the dogs.”

  One sign of the man of the covenant is that he abstains from all flesh that would render him ‘unclean’ and thus displeasing to Yahweh. In Leviticus 22.8 such flesh is contrasted with the ‘holy things’, including the flesh of sacrifices given to the priests as ‘holy things’ for their consumption when holy. So there is there the thought that the flesh of slain beasts is not ‘holy’. That is why here, because the people are holy to God, they should not eat of it. Besides to eat of the flesh of slain beasts would be to eat flesh from which the blood has not been properly drained. (It could also be dangerous medically, and this, unknown to them, was a health safeguard for the people of Israel. It could, however, be that Moses did know of it from his experiences among a desert people.).

  ‘You shall cast it to the dogs.’ Dogs are rarely mentioned but their presence is assumed (11.7; Deuteronomy 23.18; Judges 7.5; 1 Samuel 17.43 and often). They are usually seen as scavengers and not highly thought of. They were domesticated from earliest times, and in Egypt were held in reverence and used in hunting. Job 30.1 suggests they were used by shepherds, but despised. They were seen as so unholy that even the price paid for their hire (compared with a prostitute’s wages) was not acceptable as payment for any vow, although the thought there might have been catamites (Deuteronomy 23.18). Thus they were seen as suitable recipients for ‘unholy’ meat. They were presumably hired as guard dogs.

  But the use of ‘dogs’ here may indicate foreigners, not in an insulting way but as being ‘unclean’, and not of the true stock. For such meat could be given or sold to resident aliens and foreigners (Deuteronomy 14.21).

  Regulations Concerning Behaviour to One’s Neighbour (23.1-9).

  There is an interesting pattern to the following verses. (Compare 1 with 7, 2 with 6, 3 with 5).

  • a Taking a false report and perverting justice (1).
  • b Following a crowd to do evil (2).
  • c Dealing with the poor by favouring him (3).
  • d Attitude to dumb beasts (4-5).
  • c Dealing with the poor by preventing justice for him (6).
  • b Following a false matter (7).
  • a Taking a gift and perverting the truth (8-9).
  .

  23.1 “You shall not take up a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.”

  This is a warning against perjury. To take up false information in order to use it, is to be hand in hand with the wicked, that is, with those condemned by Yahweh. Such people stand against God.

  ‘Do not put your hand with the wicked.’ A joining of hands to confirm the agreement to give false testimony seems to be in mind, an act which puts all under equal condemnation. Compare Job 9.33.

  23.2 “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil. Nor shall you speak in a cause to turn aside after a crowd to bend judgment.”

  This is a warning against being influenced by the crowd, whether in private affairs or in court. If a crowd plans evil it is to be avoided. Nor must a man join with the many to bring about a wrong judgment. God’s man must stand up for right and truth even against the will of a crowd.

  23.3 “Neither shall you favour a poor man in his cause.”

  Rich and poor are to be treated the same. To be prejudiced on behalf of a poor man is no better than being prejudiced on behalf of a rich man. The truth is what matters without fear or favour.

  Some feel that the statement is unexpected and try to change the sense. But there is no textual justification for it and prejudice against the rich by the poor is not unknown (also see verse 6 where the converse is dealt with).

  23.4-5 “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his ass going astray you shall surely bring it back to him again. If you see the ass of him who hates you lying under his burden and would forbear to help him, you shall surely help with him.”

  Concern for the animal’s welfare is possibly as much in mind here as concern for the ‘enemy’. Attitudes between people are not to prevent acts of mercy towards dumb animals. But such an act would often produce reconciliation.

  This sudden switch in subject matter is typical of ancient law codes, but in fact the switch may not be as noticeable to the ancient mind as to us. After concern for the poor man comes concern for brute beasts. It is simply a step downwards The change of format is required by the content. The phrase ‘your poor’ is found elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 15.11 and speaks of the poor as a whole. To wrest (or bend) judgment suggests the twisting or manoeuvring of the facts. Thus the command is not to interfere with true judgment just because the poor are involved. This would seem to warn against discriminating against the poor, the opposite of verse 3. The content of verses 4 and 5 may well have been deliberately included here to separate the two ideas in verse 3 and verse 6 so that they could be stated separately and not confused.

  23.7 “Keep yourself far from a false matter, and do not slay the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify the wicked.”

  Anything that is dubious or false is to be avoided, especially as relating to matters of justice. To assist in a false verdict is to punish and even possibly kill those who are righteous, and to declare the wicked innocent. This is something Yahweh could not participate in and therefore neither can His people. It is contrary to all that Yahweh is.

  ‘I will not justify the wicked.’ This could refer to His not participating in a verdict that brings guilt or innocence on the wrong person, or it could be referring His judgment on those who assist in a false verdict. There is One Who sees and judges (Proverbs 15.3).

  23.8 “And you shall accept no gift, for a gift blinds those who have sight (literally ‘the open-eyed’) and perverts the words of the righteous.”

  This refers especially to witnesses, but it can also be seen as referring to any occasion when the reception of a gift could produce biased judgment. To accept a gift from someone about whom you are called to give an opinion, or from his friends, is strictly forbidden. We will always favour those who reward us however much we may protest otherwise, and this can apply equally in churches as well as in courts of law.

  ‘A gift blinds the open-eyed.’ This is the fact, however much we persuade ourselves otherwise. Its effect is subtle but certain. It makes us close our eyes to what we have seen. It makes even the righteous behave and speak unrighteously, in other words to say what otherwise they would not have said. ‘A gift is as a precious stone in the eyes of him who has it, wherever it turns it prospers’ (Proverbs 17.8), which simply indicates that it obtains what the giver is seeking to obtain.

  As today, bribery was a common fact of Old Testament life and utterly condemned (see Isaiah 1.23; Amos 5.12; Micah 3.11; Psalm 15.5; 26.10; Proverbs 17.23).

  23.9 “And a stranger you will not oppress, for you understand the heart of a stranger seeing you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

  The position of this verse shows that the previous warning is in mind. Strangers resident among us have as much right to justice as anyone else, and it is especially easy to be turned against a foreigner by ‘gifts’. But they deserve justice too. Compare 22.21, which is very similar, for the general attitude to strangers. But here the emphasis is on the resident alien receiving proper justice, in 2.21 it was on seeing him as within the sphere of God’s covenant mercy.

  Regulations Concerning Acknowledgement of Yahweh’s Lordship (23.10-13).

  Here we have two sets of regulations which refer to work and rest.

  A Seven-Year Rest (23.10-11).

  23.10-11 “And six years you shall sow your land and shall gather in the increase of it, but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow that the poor of your people may eat, and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat. In the same way you will deal with your vineyard and with your olive-yard.”

  Agriculturally this would allow the land to rest so that it could recover its vitality. It was a practise observed also in other nations. But here it was made an offering to the poor. During the six years the farmer could gather in and store his grain ready for the seventh year, and he would cater for his bondmen, but the poor who worked for others, as they could, would have no grain on the seventh year for there would be no work. This thus catered for their need. And each seventh year would be dedicated to God in recognition of His gift of the land to His people. This is made specific in Leviticus 25.4 but it is clearly its intent here as is evident from its connection with the weekly sabbath in the following verse. Both are sabbaths to Yahweh their God (20.10).

  In Deuteronomy 14.28-15.11 we have an extension of God’s provision for the poor. Not only could they enjoy the gleanings and this seventh year bonanza, but a provision would in future be made for them from the third year of tithes and by release from debt in the seventh year.

  This connection with the weekly sabbath also implies that the same seventh year shall be observed by all. This is made explicit in Leviticus 25.2-7.

  These provisions looked forward to when the land has been given to them as Yahweh promised to them in Egypt. They were a preparation for and a guarantee of what was to come. It is possible they had already been observed in Egypt. By these provisions God was reminding them of what their future will be, and encouraging their hopes. But they assumed a quick conquest of the land so that the provisions could be applied. In the end they could only be observed spasmodically. That they would not be strictly observed is brought out in Leviticus 26.34; 2 Chronicles 36.21, God knew what to expect of them, but those who did so in obedience to God would find their land more fruitful as a result.

  The Weekly Sabbath (23.12-13).

  23.12-13 “Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall cease from work, that your ox and your ass may have rest, and the son of your handmaid and the stranger may be refreshed. And in all things that I have said to you take heed, and make no mention of other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth.”

  This is a repetition of the fourth commandment. Compare 34.21. But here the stress is twofold. Firstly on the benefit to beasts and servants (compare Deuteronomy 5.14-15), and secondly on its provision as a means of meditating on God (compare Exodus 20.11).

  It is stressed that those who have no say in the matter should be able to rest, the oxen and the asses who bore the burden of the work and the sons of handmaids (either sons of concubines or sons of servants) and resident aliens who would have no land and would therefore be labourers.

  The placing of verse 13 here, while it applies to all that has gone before, emphasises that the sabbath is to be a day in which men will speak of God. They are to ensure then that they do not speak of other gods but that they concentrate their attention on the true and living God, on Yahweh.

  Regulations Concerning The Annual Feasts (23.14-19).

  The people have arrived at Mount Sinai and are preparing for what lies ahead. These laws are therefore providing them with a blueprint of that future and acting as a spur. It is always a sign of good leadership to picture the final fulfilment of what is in front as an encouragement in the face of difficulties. As these specific regulations for the future were read out to them at various times and seen as God’s law they would renew their vision for that future. It was so easy in the wilderness to lose sight of that future.

  Those who cavil at such detailed provisions being made in the wilderness have never been on a long march into the unknown under arduous conditions, when often the only thing that holds the spirits up is the consideration of the future. As they heard these regulations read out, it assured them that, although the going was tough now, in the not too distant future there would be harvests, there would be ingatherings, they would have fields to leave fallow, for this is what the regulations guaranteed. It was worth struggling through the wilderness for. It was worth going on for, it was worth fighting for. And later the outline would be filled in as they neared their final goal. (Moses was not expecting it to take forty years. That would be due to disobedience).

  We can analyse this as:

  • a Three times in a year a feast is to be kept (23.14).
  • b The feast of unleavened bread. None shall appear before Him empty (23.15).
  • c The feast of harvest. The firstfruit of their labours which they sow in their field (23.16a).
  • b The feast of ingathering. When they gather in their labours from the field (23.16b).
  • a Three times in a year all to appear before the Lord Yahweh (23.17).

  Note that in ‘a’ they are to keep feasts three times a year, and in the parallel they are to appear before Yahweh three times a year. In ‘b’ in the seven day feast of unleavened bread none are to appear before Him empty, and in the parallel in the seven day feast of ingathering they will gather their labours from the field. Both suggest plenteous provision. In ‘c’ is the central one day feast where they offer the firstfruits of their labour, their rent and tribute.

  23.14 “Three times you shall keep a feast for me during the year.”

  There were to be three feasts, the feast of unleavened bread at the beginning of the religious year, the feast of harvest (or ‘sevens’) celebrating the firstfruits, and the feast of ingathering (or ‘tabernacles’) ‘at the end of the year’, that is at the end of the period of sowing and reaping. Note the concentration on the fruitfulness of the ground. Their future was bright indeed.

  23.15 “You shall keep the feast of unleavened bread. Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month of Abib, for in it you came out from Egypt. And none shall appear before me empty.”

  Compare 34.18. This first feast was closely connected with the Passover and has already been outlined in chapters 12 and 13. It was the time when the harvesting began (Deuteronomy 16.9). It would ever remind them of their deliverance from Egypt when they had to eat unleavened bread because of the haste in which they came out. It would include the waving of the sheaf before Yahweh (Leviticus 23.11).

  ‘None shall appear before me empty.’ (Compare 34.19-20; Deuteronomy 16.16). All must appear bringing offerings and sacrifices from their firstlings (34.19-20) and gifts from their harvest firstfruits to Yahweh as they are able. But the especial point is that all will have such gifts to bring.

  23.16a “And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of your labours which you sow in the field.”

  Compare 34.22 where it is the Feast of Sevens. This feast would be held seven sevens plus one day after the feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus 23.15-21; Numbers 28.26-31; Deuteronomy 16.9-12), and would celebrate the wheat harvest. It would include the waving of two wave loaves of fine flour baked with leaven as firstfruits to Yahweh, and celebrated the firstfruits of their labours (34.22 has ‘the firstfruits of the wheat harvest’). It was later called the Feast of Sevens (weeks), and Pentecost.

  23.16b “And the feast of ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in your labours out of the field.”

  This was celebrated in the seventh month and was later called the feast of tabernacles. This was the final celebration of the whole harvest including the grapes and olives, the vintage was gathered in and the threshing was over for another year (Leviticus 23.33-44; Numbers 29.12-38; Deuteronomy 16.13-15).

  ‘At the end of the year’, that is, the agricultural ‘year’ when the harvests had been gathered in. We need not assume that Moses saw them as having two official calendars. The final gathering in of the vintage and summer fruits would necessarily be seen by them as ‘the end of the year’. Agriculturally the next step would be sowing for the following year. But their official calendar now began in April. Fixation of calendars was far from Moses’ mind. Whatever happened later he was dealing in practicalities.

  These three feasts encapsulated all the hopes of the children of Israel. They were promised here to a landless people who were encamped in the wilderness but who looked forward in the future to owning their own land, with fruitful fields and full harvests in the land of milk and honey. In these commandments their hope for the future was written large. What encouragement must have been theirs as they contemplated them together.

  This was all probably patterned on the feasts they had kept of old in Canaan, the sheepshearing and the harvests. Such customs tend to linger on, especially in a strange land, even when the specific events connected with them have ceased.

  Moses would certainly have enquired into conditions in Canaan in preparation for their arrival there. He would have been incompetent not to. And there would almost certainly be a number among the people who had more recently been in Canaan before going to Egypt

  Note how brief the descriptions are and their concentration on ‘none shall appear before me empty’, ‘the firstfruits of your labours’, and ‘you gather in your labours out of the field’, just the ideas suited to encouraging a pilgrimage people.

  23.17 “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord Yahweh.”

  This is the first specific indication to the reader that all are to gather three times a year at a central sanctuary to celebrate God’s goodness. At these times sections of the history and the covenants would be read out as a reminder to the people of God’s promises and requirements, including the earlier covenants with the fathers and the initial covenants with Adam (Genesis 1.28-30; 3.17-19) and Noah (Genesis 9.1-7) with their background histories, and the people would make their response. Every seven years the whole of the Law which had been given to Moses and which he had written down (Deuteronomy 31.9, 24) would be read out (Deuteronomy 31.11).

  The children of Israel would be, and indeed already were, divided into twelve sub-tribes whose unity was to be maintained by their connection with a central sanctuary. The arrangement is called an Amphictyony (the pattern occurred elsewhere including in ancient Greece). This was a well known form of organisation among such peoples and we have already seen indications of such arrangements among peoples connected with Abraham (Genesis 22.20-24; 25.2-4; 25.13-15; 31.23; various combinations in Genesis 36 (e.g. 36.15-19, 29-30, 40-43 - note that they were not only sons but chieftains or ‘dukes’). Indeed the name Oholibamah means ‘tent of the high place’).

  ‘All your males.’ The gathering was to be officially of the males, but they would often later be accompanied by their families. Such a gathering would also be called for when danger threatened (Judges 5.13-23).

  ‘Shall appear before the Lord Yahweh.’ Note the title. Yahweh is now their Overlord. The phrase ‘appear before’ occurs in 23.15; 34.20, 23, 24; Deuteronomy 16.16; 31.11; Isaiah 1.12 in this technical sense. They would come to His central sanctuary to worship and renew the covenant.

  Sundry Regulations Connected With the Feasts (23.18-19).

  These verses are almost paralleled in 34.25-26, which confirms that the four parts are all firmly connected together.

  They can be analysed as follows:

  • a The blood of His sacrifice not to be offered with leavened bread (23.18a).
  • b The fat of His feast not to be left until the morning (23.18b).
  • b The first of the firstfruits of the ground to be brought to the house of ‘Yahweh Eloheyca’ (23.19a).
  • a A kid not to be seethed in its mother’s milk (23.19b).

  The parallel of the first with the fourth where something stated is not to be connected with something unsuitable, together with the fact that the first three all refer to offerings to Yahweh, may suggest that the fourth item is also connected with a possible offering to Yahweh, and that to offer it in this way would be unsuitable and was forbidden.

  23.18 “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, nor shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning.”

  The parallel passage in 34.25 has, ‘You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, nor shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.’ Thus ‘the fat of My feast’ is paralleled by ‘the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover.

  In all sacrifices the blood and the fat was offered to Yahweh. The eating of blood was forbidden. And when the blood of the sacrifice was offered to Yahweh only unleavened cakes were to be offered. This emphasised that leavening was seen as corrupting, and nothing corrupted was to be brought to Yahweh. This was speaking of the festal sacrifices. But the words ‘My sacrifice’ and the connection with nothing ‘remaining until the morning’ (compare 12.10) may be seen as signifying that the Passover is in mind here, especially in the light of 34.25.

  Either way we too when we offer our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving must ensure that all corruption in our lives has been removed by cleansing.

  A rare exception to the rule of unleavened bread is found in Leviticus 7.13 with reference to a peace offering for thanksgiving, otherwise leavened bread is regularly forbidden. The regulations for freewill offerings were not quite so strict (Leviticus 22.23) for they were partaken of by the people. They were not as holy.

  The fat was always offered immediately without delay, for it was specifically Yahweh’s without exception, and to delay offering it would be insulting, and might also allow it to spoil and not be worthy of Yahweh. So corruption must not affect the sacrifices in any way.

  ‘The fat of my feast.’ This parallels ‘the blood of my sacrifice’ in the first part of the verse and refers to the particular ‘feast to me’ (verses 14-16) at which the offering was made. Thus it may be that we are to see ‘the fat of my feast’ as signifying, not the fat of the sacrifice, but the abundance, the fullness, of what the Passover sacrifice signified. Nothing of the abundance of what He provided at this feast was to be left until the morning. This is confirmed by 34.25.

  Others have seen ‘the fat of My feast’ as referring to ‘the fat of the land’ (Genesis 45.18), and as connecting with all the feasts, when what is offered must be properly enjoyed and not wasted. But there are good grounds for rather connecting it with the Passover for in 34.25 a parallel phrase speaks of ‘the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover’. There it is the whole sacrifice that must not be left until the morning (compare 12.10).

  Thus this whole verse seems to have specific reference to the Passover sacrifice, called ‘My sacrifice’ and My feast’, demonstrating its special significance to God.

  23.19a “The first of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of Yahweh your God.”

  Compare 34.26a. Wherever God revealed Himself could be called ‘the house of God’ (Genesis 28.17), for it meant a dwelling-place, where God had revealed Himself. Here it therefore meant the place where God was approached, the Tent of Meeting and later the Tabernacle (34.26). The first of the firstfruits may mean the choicest of the firstfruits or literally what ripened first. The point was that Yahweh would receive His portion before His people received theirs as an acknowledgement that what they received came from Him and belonged to Him. This may have special reference to the Feast of Harvest or Sevens (Weeks) where the firstfruits were especially offered (23.16).

  On the other hand the first of the firstfruits was offered on the first day of unleavened bread in the presentation of the first ripe sheaf (Leviticus 23.10-11). This might serve to confirm that Passover and Unleavened Bread are again in mind.

  23.19b “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”

  Compare 34.26b which demonstrates (as does the chiasmus here) that this is to be seen as an integral part of the series. If the connection of the other three items is with the Passover feasting it may suggest that this was also connected with the Passover feasting. Just as it was unseemly that the Passover be eaten with leavened bread, so was it unseemly that a kid eaten at the feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread be seethed in its mother’s milk. The seething of kids in milk was certainly practised among the Arabs later, and there seems no reason why that should be condemned, the condemnation would therefore seem to be of its being in the milk of its mother.

  But some have connected it with the Feast of Ingathering on the grounds that both Unleavened Bread and Harvest have been in mind in verses 18-19a, and it may be so. Either way the contrast is specifically with not offering the blood of the Passover lamb with unleavened bread. In the end the thought is that no kid that is seethed at any feast should be seethed in its mother’s milk, because that would be an abomination to Yahweh.

  It is thought by some that elsewhere among the nations kids were boiled in their mother’s milk so that the resulting magical mixture could be sprinkled on the fields hoping to produce fertility. (It has been suggested that it is witnessed to, for example, in The Birth of the Gods, a Ugaritic text, but this suggested reference is now seen as misread). It may have been that this was so. But the more probable reason would seem to be that it was seen as unseemly that a calf should be boiled in what should rather have been seen as maintaining its life, that is, that it was seen as a contradiction in Creation that was unacceptable. It made the mother destroy her kid rather than sustaining it. It was an attack on the conception of motherhood that could not be allowed.

  Compare Leviticus 20.12 where a man lies with both a mother and her daughter, and 18.23 where sexual relations with a beast is in mind, of both of which it is said, ‘it is confusion’. They were relationships which were not to be. Similarly this could be seen as ‘confusion’. A mother’s role was to be seen as strictly that of life providing, and anything else a distortion of reality (compare the milder thought in Isaiah 49.15). Compare also how in Deuteronomy 14.21 the practise is connected with that of an Israelite eating something that ‘dies of itself’. Israelites and such dead meat were to be seen as incompatible. By this time it may be that the phrase ‘you shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk’ had become proverbial of any incompatible situation. But whatever the explanation it was a practise forbidden to Israel.

  For us the lesson is clear. We are to have a regard to what is seemly and what is not. If we cannot see that to seethe a kid in its mother’s milk could be seen as unseemly then there is little to be said for us. It would demonstrate a lack of appreciation of motherhood, and a lack of the sensitivity that all God’s people should have, that could only condemn us. For this example stresses proper consideration of relationships, and that all distortions of motherhood are an abomination to God.

  Yahweh’s Promise That He will Send His Angel With Them (23.20-28).

  Yahweh now confirms that He will go with His people into Canaan.

  This section may be analysed as follows:

  • a Yahweh will send His Angel before them (23.20).
  • b If they hear His voice then Yahweh will act for them against their enemies (23.21-22).
  • c The Angel will cut off the Canaanite nations (23.23).
  • d They are not to bow down to their gods, but to serve Yahweh Eloheyca (23.24-25a).
  • d Then He will bless their bread and water and take away sickness from among them (23.25b).
  • c None will cast their young or be barren among the Israelites (their seed will not be cut off) (23.26).
  • b He will send His terror before them and make their enemies turn their backs on them (23.27).
  • a He will send forth His hornet who will drive out the Canaanite nations (23.28)

  The chiasmus brings out in ‘a’ and its parallel and ‘b’ and its parallel what Yahweh will do for them, in ‘a’ by sending His presence before them, in ‘b’ by dealing with their enemies. In ‘c’ there is the contrast between the death coming on the Canaanites and the abundance of life coming to the Israelites. The one will be cut off, the other will not be cut off. In ‘d’ the call is to worship Yahweh only which will result in plenteousness and good health

  23.20 “Behold I am sending an Angel before you to keep you by the way, and to bring you to the place which I have prepared. Take heed to him and listen to his voice. Do not provoke him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.”

  Once again we are introduced to the Angel of Yahweh (see on 3.2. Also Genesis 16.7-13; 20.17; 22.11-14), that mysterious figure who personally represented Yahweh and yet was somehow different. The Angel brings Yahweh more physically into a situation. He is Yahweh, for Yahweh can say, ‘My name is in Him’. And He can then add ‘My Angel will go before you -- and I will cut them off’, demonstrating that the Angel and Yahweh act as One (see also 32.34; 33.2 with 33.14).

  The Angel who goes before them was surely represented by the pillar of cloud and fire (13.21-22; Deuteronomy 1.33), which itself manifested the presence of God (13.21). God will be with them in the way.

  ‘The place which I have prepared’. Compare 15.17. He will keep them in the way and bring them to the prepared place in which they will enjoy the harvests of which He has spoken.

  ‘Take heed to him.’ Obedience was necessary if they were to inherit the promises. If they broke His laws His Angel would not forgive it. For He was a representation of the holy Yahweh, God of the covenant. Yet such was His mercy that when they did provoke Him He partly overlooked their transgression for Moses’ sake, although warning that their sin would eventually be visited on them, and He continued to go before them (32.31-34; 33.14).

  ‘My name is in him.’ What Yahweh is, He is. The Old Testament reveals Yahweh in three ways, under His Own name, as the Angel of Yahweh (Yahweh in personal, close revelation) and as the Spirit of Yahweh, (the invisible Yahweh seen in powerful and visible action). But each is Yahweh and reveals His nature and being.

  23.22 “But if you will indeed listen to his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.”

  Obedience will bring the Overlord’s support against their coming enemies. One of the great advantages of a Suzerainty Treaty was that the great overlord would come to the support of the treaty people. Their enemies would be his enemies, because they were his people and he was their overlord. But if they were not obedient to the treaty he would come and punish them (verse 21). This illustrates that we are still in the atmosphere of the great Suzerainty treaty in Exodus 20.

  Note the change in personal pronouns. ‘His voice --- all that I speak’. Yahweh and the Angel speak as One.

  23.23 “For my Angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorite and the Hittite, and the Perizzite and the Canaanite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, and I will cut them off.”

  The general treaty is now applied to the particular situation. As they enter the land they will meet up with the multiplicity of its inhabitants. And the Angel of Yahweh will go before them and Yahweh will cut off their enemies. The use of six may indicate three (the number of completeness) intensified and thus signify that the six nations are to be seen as all the inhabitants in the land (compare 3.8, 17 and contrast 13.5 In 23.28 three are cited confirming this connection).

  For the names of the enemies compare especially on 3.8; also 13.5.

  23.24 “You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works. But you shall utterly overthrow them and break in pieces their pillars.”

  Rivals to the Overlord must be rejected and their symbols destroyed. They are not to be tolerated. There is One Overlord and He is Yahweh. Peoples entering a land would often begin to include the gods of the land within their worship (see on 2 Kings 17.24-34) to ensure their protection. But this was not to be so here. They too must be cut off and cast out. The land is Yahweh’s.

  ‘Nor do after their works.’ Canaanite religion was debased and sexually perverted.

  ‘Break in pieces their pillars.’ This refers to the standing stones which were often a feature of Canaanite shrines. Pillars were often set up as memorials (Genesis 18.28-22; 35.13-15; Exodus 24.4; Joshua 4.1-9) but these were different, they were identified with a god and venerated, and offerings were placed before them. They represented Canaanite religion and its gods. Many examples have been found in and around Palestine (for example at Gezer, Hazor, Lejjun, Byblos and Ugarit), some with offerings still before them. They are constantly condemned throughout the Old Testament.

  23.25-26 “And you shall serve Yahweh your God, and he will bless your bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from among you. None will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will fulfil the number of your days.”

  Yahweh Himself will provide for all their needs of food, water, fertility and long life. The gods of rain and storm and the fertility gods were a regular feature of Canaanite life and religion. But they will be irrelevant. For what Yahweh will do will be far better than anything that the Canaanites claim for their gods. He can ensure that they have food and water in abundance (compare Deuteronomy 11.14-15; 28.12), that all their women are fertile and that they live long lives. This was a picture of a new Eden but it would fail in its fulfilment because of the disobedience of the people.

  Note again the change of pronoun from He to I which occurs often when Yahweh speaks, as God makes a statement and then personalises it.

  “You shall serve Yahweh your God.” Compare 20.2. This is a reference back to the giving of the covenant. He alone is to be served and all rivals are to be rejected. Service includes both being faithful to the ordinances laid down for worship, and obedience to His covenant stipulations.

  23.27-28 “I will send my terror before you and will discomfit all the people to whom you will come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send the hornet before you which will drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite from before you.”

  Yahweh will prepare the way before them by bringing a great fear on their future foes. Thus they will be beaten before the battle begins, and will flee in terror from them (‘turn their backs to you’). Compare for this 15.14-16; Deuteronomy 2.25, and its part fulfilment in Joshua 2.9; 10.10; Judges 4.15. See also Genesis 35.5. He will also use physical terrors to aid in the discomfiting.

  ‘I will send the hornet before you.’ Compare Deuteronomy 7.20. This may mean that Yahweh will also support them by using natural terrors to discomfit their foes. The hornet is a larger version of the wasp with a vicious sting, which can sometimes cause death, and a fearsome reputation. All would know of the terror the appearance of a swarm of hornets could cause, and it would seem that a literal plague of hornets did at one notable stage throw the forces of the two kings of the Amorites into disarray (Joshua 24.12). The fact that the Amorites are not mentioned in verse 28 (compare verse 23) demonstrates that this was written before that event. We could translate ‘hornets’ seeing it as a collective noun. Here it probably represents all the physical terrors of nature.

  ‘Hornet’ (tsi‘rah). The word only occurs in 23.28; Deuteronomy 7.20 and Joshua 24.12. Some would translate as ‘depression, discouragement’ but a more positive foe appears to be in mind. It comes from the root word which means being ‘struck with a skin disease’. Hornets attack the skin. This promise may have been in mind in Revelation 9.1-11.

  But the context may suggest that the description has the Angel of Yahweh in mind, pictured in terms of the fearsome hornet, swarming down on the enemy and causing them to flee in terror. The Israelite attacks in all quarters may well have seemed like to their enemy like swarms of hornets, coming from nowhere and buzzing round their cities and towns.

  The threefold description of the Canaanites again stresses completeness. This mention of only three Canaanite nations is unusual (usually there are five, six or seven) and is a most interesting and careful use of a number. In verse 23 six nations were mentioned representing the whole. Had six been used here that would have made twelve. But twelve represented Israel (the twelve tribes). Thus here three are used, making nine in the passage in all, which is simply three intensified indicating the whole.

  Yahweh’s Promises and Warnings For The Future (23.29-33).

  • a The Canaanites to be driven out little by little so as to preserve the land until the Israelites are numerous enough to possess it all (23.29-30).
  • b The bounds of the promised land outlined with the promise that the Canaanites will be driven out (23.31).
  • b Israel to make no covenant with them or their gods (23.32).
  • a The Canaanites not finally to dwell in the land lest they make them sin and their gods become a snare (23.33).

    These four statements intermingle in a most comprehensive way but may also be seen as a chiasmus. In ‘a’ we have the command to drive out the Canaanites and in the parallel they are not to be allowed to dwell in the land. In ‘b’ God commands the Canaanites be driven out and in the parallel they must make no covenant with them. But ‘a’ and ‘b’ both refer to the driving out of the Canaanites, while ‘b’ and ‘a’ refer to the gods of the Canaanites. Yet the driving out of the Canaanites in ‘b’ parallels the fact that in the parallel ‘b’ they must make no covenant with them, and the reason for ‘a’ is found in the parallel ‘a’.

    23.29-30 “I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild animals grow in large numbers against you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you until you have grown in numbers and inherit the land.”

    This confirms that ‘the hornet’ which will drive them out is not to be seen as representing one particular short series of events. It is something that will work over the longer period. This would confirm the picture of the Angel of Yahweh as a buzzing hornet, continuing His work through the years as the land is taken over.

    Thus the promise was that they would enter the land and establish themselves, removing the inhabitants and purifying the land, and then gradually expand until the whole land as depicted in 23.31 was theirs. Then would they be a holy people and become a kingdom of priests to take His message to the world.

    God’s purpose in the delay is stated. It is so that the land will not revert to wilderness and so that wild animals might not take over. This in itself emphasises that while the Israelites entered in comparatively large numbers they were not so large a number as some have thought (see on 12.37). Once their numbers grew sufficiently they would be able to enter into their inheritance (6.6-8; 15.16-18).

    Of course the ideal was never achieved. Israel failed to enter the land and conquer it as they should have (Numbers 14), and when they did enter and multiply they did not wholly rid the land of its inhabitants (Judges 1.27-33). Because of their unbelief the great vision never came to fruition. Even the successes of David and Solomon could not hide this (1 Kings 4.21). While they were glorious they did not fulfil the conditions or the promises. They never entered into the new Eden. They never became the kingdom of priests in the fullest sense.

    But it was partially fulfilled, for the later history in Joshua and Judges does partially follow this picture. While their first triumphant entry into the hill country was rapid and widespread, pictured as a great series of victories (as indeed they were) so that they were established in the land (Joshua 11.23 - but that this was partial in terms of the full picture comes out in the previous verse), it was also seen as partial and leaving much to be done. The land was divided up, but its full possession was another thing (Joshua 13.1-14). This would occur gradually until the claim in 1 Kings 4.21 could be made. ‘And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms, from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt’. But they would still only be second best. The result would not a be ‘holy’ people totally dedicated to Yahweh.

    Later too they would be scattered among the nations in the Dispersion and become among them bearers of God’s ‘law’, and their ministry would be carried on by the new Israel, the early church.

    All this reminds us that the promises of God are dependent on the obedience of His people. They will, of course, finally be achieved in ways far beyond our imagining, with a new heaven and a new earth. But man’s disobedience would cause these purposes partially to fail on earth just as Adam’s had previously. In the end man’s only hope would be in divine intervention of an unprecedented kind when the great Man of Sorrows called a people to Himself to take over the vision. But even they have failed. In the end He must do it all Himself.

    23.31 “And I will set your border from the Sea of Reeds even to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness even to the River, for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out from before you.

    The future boundaries of the promised land are set out and they are natural boundaries. The wilderness was the land of the South north of Egypt, and the River was the Euphrates. The sea of the Philistines was the Mediterranean, and the Sea of Reeds here represents the Gulf of Aqabah, the tongue of the Red Sea leading up to the rift valley containing the Jordan and the Dead Sea. Thus the promised land reached from the Euphrates to Egypt, and from the Mediterranean to the Rift Valley. This was the land promised by Yahweh in the covenant on condition that the covenant conditions were fulfilled. But they never were. God’s terms were rejected and partial obedience could only result in partial fulfilment.

    ‘Sea of the Philistines.’ This description of the Mediterranean Sea (or part of it) is found nowhere else suggesting that it was a very ancient title and superseded. This would serve to confirm the presence of some who bore a name which could be translated into Hebrew like this in Palestine before the time of Moses, as Genesis indicates. It shortly becomes ‘the Great Sea’ (Numbers 34.6-7; Joshua 1.4; 9.1; 15.12, 47; 23.4). To use the Reed Sea as the eastern border would be unlikely once they were in the land.

    23.32-33 “You will make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in the land lest they make you sin against me, for if you serve their gods it will surely be a snare to you.”

    So the Book of the Covenant ends as it begins, with the reminder that He was Yahweh their God (20.2; 23.25) Who would act on their behalf (23.25-31) as He had already acted in Egypt (20.2), and the reminder also that He would brook no rivals (20.3-6; 23.32-33). Thus the land must be rid of all evil influences. Neither they nor their gods must be allowed place in ‘the land’. There must be no treaties made with them. They must be totally driven out. The land and the people must be holy to Yahweh.

    ‘For if you serve their gods they will surely be a snare to you.’ How true this would prove to be. Syncretism with the Canaanite worship of Baal and Asherah would plague them right up to the Exile.

    (Note for Christians.

    Just as God would send His angel before His people as they approached the land where they were to set up the Kingly Rule of God, so does He go before us as we seek to set up the Kingly Rule of God here on earth (Matthew 28.21), that Kingly Rule which stretches to all His true people (Colossians 1.13). Those who are His are those who genuinely see themselves as under His Kingly Rule and bound by all His requirements, not in order to be saved, but because they have been saved. And they gladly seek to do His will.

    It may be asked, are we required to keep the feasts as laid down in this chapter? And again the answer is clear. We do not keep the feasts because we do not possess the land. We owe no ‘rent’. We do not offer the sacrifices because they have been superseded in the one Sacrifice made for all for all time. But we should and do give thanks for our harvests and bring to Him of our produce in gratitude for all His goodness.

    End of note).

    The People Respond to the Covenant and Confirm Their Acceptance of Its Terms (24.1-11).

    This passage can be analysed as follows:

    • a Moses, Aaron and his eldest sons, and the seventy are called up to worship ‘afar off’ (24.1).
    • b Only Moses may approach Yahweh (as the mediator) (24.2).
    • c Moses declares the words of Yahweh and all His judgments and the people respond, ‘All the words which Yahweh has said we will do’ (24.3).
    • d Moses writes all the words of Yahweh (preparing the covenant document for the people) (24.4a).
    • e Moses builds an altar and erects twelve pillars in accordance with the tribes of Israel (24.4b).
    • e Moses sends young men who offer whole burnt offerings and sacrifice peace offerings to Yahweh (24.5).
    • d Moses takes of the blood and sprinkles it on the altar (committing the covenant to Yahweh) (24.6).
    • c The covenant having been accepted by the Overlord Moses takes the book of the covenant and reads it to the people and they respond, ‘All that Yahweh has said we will do and be obedient’ (24.7).
    • b Moses sprinkles the people with the blood of the covenant sealing the covenant with them (as the mediator) (24.8).
    • a Moses, Aaron and his eldest sons, and the seventy go up to behold Yahweh and to eat and drink before Him (24.9-11).

    We note that the first five references refer to preparation for the covenant and the second five refer to the application of the covenant. In ‘a’ the representatives of Israel are called together to worship (preparation), and in parallel eat and drink the covenant meal before Yahweh (application). In ‘b’ Moses approaches Yahweh as the mediator (preparation), and in parallel sprinkles the people as the mediator (application). In ‘c’ the covenant is declared and accepted (preparation) and in the parallel it is read out (having meanwhile been written down) and accepted (application), with in both cases a willing response from the people. In ‘d’ the covenant words of Yahweh are written down for presentation to the people (preparation) and in parallel the blood of the written covenant is presented to Yahweh (application). And central to all in ‘e’ is the preparation for and offering of the offerings and sacrifices.

    We can now look at it in more detail.

    24.1-2 ‘And he said to Moses, “Come up to Yahweh, you and Aaron, and Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you will worship afar off. And Moses alone will come near to Yahweh, but they shall not come near, neither shall the people go up with him.” ’

    This is the commencement of the covenant procedure, the call of the Overlord for the people’s representatives to approach. It is then followed by the selection of the mediator who alone can approach the Overlord.

    ‘And He said to Moses.’ The use of ‘He’ instead of ‘Yahweh’ (contrast 20.22 with which it therefore connects, see also 24.12), demonstrates the close connection between this and the previous words, stressing that this is a continuation of the theme. He had been speaking to all Israel through Moses (21.1), now He speaks to Moses in his own right. Chapter 24 is integrally connected with what has gone before,

    The change of person in the sentence from ‘you’ to ‘him’ appears to be a pattern (compare 23.23), and here indicates a firm and emphasised movement from the general welcome of all to the particular access provided to the chosen mediator. The purpose here would seem to be to stress the names of Yahweh and of Moses, and the latter’s unique privilege of access.

    A group of ‘seventy of the elders of Israel’, as the people’s representatives, together with Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, were to ascend the lower mount so as to ‘worship afar off’. But they were not to go up higher. That was to be left for Moses alone. And the people were excluded altogether. This feasting before Yahweh would seal the covenant.

    Nadab and Abihu were two sons of Aaron (28.1; see also 6.23). Here they were given a huge privilege and were being prepared for great responsibility. But they would shortly sadly die before they had fulfilled themselves because they dealt lightly with sacred things (Leviticus 10.1-2). Great privilege brings great responsibility of many kinds.

    ‘Seventy of the elders of Israel.’ These would seem to represent specifically the combined leadership (compare Numbers 11.16, 24-25). The number seventy signifies divine completeness (compare Exodus 1.5), and the leading elders were possibly limited to that number. Compare Numbers 11.24-25 with 26. The two were ‘of those who were written’ and therefore part of ‘the seventy’. But it may be that this means that at that stage there were seventy two, although ‘gathered the seventy’ might simply be describing the group as a whole without saying that they were all present. The group was probably known as ‘the seventy’ regardless of exact numbers. On this number was patterned the later Sanhedrin, the governing body of the Jews in the time of Christ. Compare also Luke 10.1, 17.

    The purpose of this event was as a ceremony at which Yahweh would receive the response of the people to His covenant and would seal it by handing over the official covenant documents, just as a great overlord would when sealing his suzerainty treaty. But before this could be done there were things that Moses had to do.

    24.3 ‘And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh and all the judgments, and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which Yahweh has spoken we will do.”

    Moses called the people together for the explanation of the treaty. He declared to them Yahweh’s offer and detailed Yahweh’s requirements as contained in 20-23. Then the people ‘with one voice’ declared their acceptance. The words appear to be in accepted phraseology (compare 19.8). It was unanimous.

    ‘All the words of Yahweh.’ These are described mainly in 20.1-17 with a codicil in 20.22-26.

    ‘And all the judgments.’ These are described in 21.1-23.19. They are then followed by the reconfirmation of what Yahweh will do for His people (23.20-33).

    ‘And all the people answered with one voice.’ This was their confirmation that as one people they were willing to enter into the covenant.

    24.4-8 ‘And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh and rose up early in the morning and built an altar under the Mount, and twelve pillars in accordance with the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to Yahweh. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant and read in the hearing of the people, and they said, “All that Yahweh has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold, the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words.” ’

    Now that the covenant had been offered and accepted the official procedures had to be gone through. First it had to be put into writing (as most ancient covenants were, compare regularly in the Book of Genesis) and then the covenant offerings were made prior to the blood of the covenant being presented to the Overlord, seeking His acceptance of the covenant as written and commitment to it. Then the covenant, having been agreed by the Overlord, was read to the people for their acceptance, after which the blood of the covenant was sprinkled on them and they confirmed their acceptance of it.

    Moses may well have worked through the night writing out the covenant. Then he went about the solemn process of ratification. First he built an altar which in a sense represented Yahweh’s side of things. Then he erected twelve pillars to represent the whole people of Israel. (Compare here Genesis 31.45-46). Note that all were now seen as incorporated in the twelve tribes. Then he offered whole burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen. Then he applied the blood of the offerings, half to the altar and half to the people. It may be that the latter was mainly done by sprinkling it on the twelve pillars, which would seem to be their purpose, and then by a token sprinkling, but symbolically he was sprinkling the whole people.

    ‘Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh.’ This would include ‘the word’ and ‘the judgments’ (24.3). The whole covenant needed to be ratified. But on the Mount he will receive Yahweh’s copy of the treaty and that is possibly only of the ten words (24.12 with 34.28; Deuteronomy 4.13; 5.22; 10.4. See also 31.18; 32.15-16), so that may be the same here. But it may be that ‘the ten words’ were seen as including the whole, the rest seen as a codicil.

    ‘Rose up early in the morning.’ The ceremony would take some time and he probably wished to complete it by the evening.

    ‘Twelve pillars.’ This was a legitimate use of pillars as symbolic and as memorials.

    ‘In accordance with the twelve tribes of Israel.’ Compare Genesis 49.28. The mixed multitude with their mixed descent are now seen as fully incorporated into the twelve tribes of Israel and as ‘descended’ from the patriarchs.

    ‘He sent young men of the children of Israel.’ These were no doubt seen as representing Israel’s future. They acted under Moses’ instructions and there was at this stage no known limit as to who could offer sacrifices on behalf of the people. We may be sure that whatever requirements there were would be maintained. But it was Moses who took and applied the blood. Young men may have been used because they were strong and able to carry out their functions without difficulty. But we should note that the young men did not manipulate the blood. That was Moses task as the priest of the people. The use of young men from among the people may have been in order to make the people feel very closely involved. It was not their leadership, somewhat distant from the ordinary Israelite, but young men from among them, who offered these covenant offerings. It was very much a covenant made with them, rather than on their behalf.

    ‘Offered whole burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings (or sacrifices).’ The whole burnt offerings were totally consumed and were a very ancient form of sacrifice (Genesis 8.20; 22.13; Exodus 10.25). Of the peace offerings/sacrifices the blood and fat must be offered to Yahweh but the flesh may be eaten (see Deuteronomy 12.27 for the distinction). There are, in this combination, elements of worship, of dedication, of propitiation and of gratitude.

    Note. On the whole burnt offerings were ‘offered’ (‘alah - in the hiphil ‘sent up’) and peace sacrifices ‘sacrificed’ or ‘slaughtered’ (zabach) or ‘offered’ (qarab). The verbs relate to the nouns, ‘offer’ to ‘burnt offerings’, and ‘sacrifice’ to ‘peace sacrifices’. However, in 20.24; 1 Kings 3.4 whole burnt offerings were also ‘sacrificed’, showing that they were ‘sacrifices’ and demonstrating that the difference was not a vital one, although this use is rare. But in the Pentateuch only whole burnt offerings and meal offerings were ever said to be ‘offered’ (‘alah - sent up) to Yahweh. Outside the Pentateuch ‘peace offerings’ (not designated sacrifices) were also ‘offered’, compare, for example, 2 Samuel 6.17-18; 24.25; 1 Kings 9.25; 1 Chronicles 16.2; 21.26. These latter are also regularly said to be ‘sacrificed’, and there may be two kinds, those wholly offered to Yahweh and those sacrificed and partaken of. Offerings specifically designated as ‘sacrifices’ (zebach) are never ‘offered’ (‘alah). (End of note).

    ‘Put it in basins.’ The blood was collected as it flowed out, in basins.

    ‘Sprinkled it on the altar.’ By this means the covenant blood was offered to Yahweh, and Yahweh was joined in the covenant. The chiasmus suggests that this was very much the offer to the Overlord of the covenant for His acceptance prior to it being sealed with His vassals.

    ‘Took the Book of the Covenant and read it.’ The offer to the Overlord was followed by the solemn reading with a view to official acceptance by the people. The people then formally accepted it.

    ‘Sprinkled it on the people.’ This applied the shed blood to the people, joining them in the covenant. It was ‘the blood of the covenant’. The blood sprinkled on the altar and the blood sprinkled on the people was to be seen as ‘one blood’. Both Yahweh and His people were now seen as conjoined in participation of the covenant. As ‘the blood of the covenant’ it probably signified both that death would result from gross disobedience to the covenant, and the application of the benefit of the covenant, in all its atoning aspects, to the people. It had also been sprinkled on the altar, joining Yahweh in the covenant, and purifying the altar. The pillars (verse 4) were also probably sprinkled as representing the whole of the people. They were the counterpart of the altar which was sprinkled representing Yahweh.

    The fact that the blood was sprinkled on the people should warn us against making extravagant claims as to what the sprinkling of blood before Yahweh signified. It certainly signified specific application to the person or persons involved, incorporating them within the covenant on pain of death, but without being specific as to the exact further significance. We can, however, be sure that the multiplicity of sacrifices (whole burnt offerings and peace offerings) included atonement, a making of peace, and an indication by the people of tribute offered to their Lord and king, and that it rendered the people acceptable before Yahweh. Blood was regularly shed in the making of covenants among many peoples, but different peoples and interpreters would see it in different ways. Comparative religion can be helpful in supplying ideas, but each nation saw its rites in its own way. In order to understand Israel’s we must look at what Israel said about its own rites, and here they centred on tribute, atonement and the making of peace between God and man.

    24.9-11 ‘Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. And on the chief men of the children of Israel he did not lay his hand, and they beheld God and ate and drank.’

    Following the covenant offer, sacrifice, and final acceptance was the covenant feast which sealed the whole ceremony. This was shared, as it were, between Yahweh and His people as represented by the elders (although noticeably Yahweh does not partake. There is no suggestion of God in human form). This was made possible because the blood had been shed, and the covenant had been sealed. Now His people could meet with Him as His covenant people.

    ‘And they saw the God of Israel.’ The sealing of the covenant made a huge difference. The God of Israel now came down to meet them. There was a manifestation of God, probably in the same cloud and fire and smoke of 19.18; 23.17. No description is given and we dare not speculate further. But ‘under His feet’ was a vision of glorious blue which reminded them of sapphires and the glorious clear blue of the heavens. The fact that this is outlined and emphasised must suggest that His own presence was veiled (compare Isaiah 6.1-6 where Isaiah describes everything but Yahweh).

    ‘He laid not His hand.’ They were allowed to see God and live. But it was not in His full glory for this was not even possible for Moses (33.22-23).

    ‘And they beheld God and ate and drank.’ They feasted with God although God did not feast with them. This covenant feast was an essential part of the making of the covenant. It was a symbol of their now expressed dependence on and fellowship with the Overlord. They were now His vassals. Such feasting would be an essential part of a covenant ceremony.

    ‘The God of Israel.’ In 5.1 He was described as the ‘Yahweh, God of Israel’ but here it is the stark declaration of the new position. They have taken Him as their only God, and He is their God alone.

    Moses Called Up Into The Mount (24.12-18).

    Verse 12 gives the impression that they were now back in the camp. Thus it would seem that the call came to Moses there, and Moses went up into the Mount to receive the Overlord’s version of the covenant.

    We may analyse this passage as follows:

    • a Moses is to go up into the mount to receive the written Law, and Moses and Joshua go up into the mount while the elders remain to oversee the people (12-14).
    • b Moses goes up into the mount and the cloud covers the mount (15).
    • c The glory of Yahweh is revealed on the mount (16a).
    • d The cloud covers the mount and Yahweh speaks to Moses from the midst of the cloud (16b).
    • c The appearance of the glory of Yahweh is like a devouring fire on the mount (17).
    • b Moses entered into the cloud and went up into the mount (18a).
    • a Moses was in the mountain forty days and forty nights (18b).

    We note that in ‘a’ Moses goes up into the mount and in the parallel he is there for forty days and forty nights. In ‘b’ Moses goes up into the mount and the cloud covers the mount (where Moses is), in the parallel Moses enters the cloud and goes up into the mount a deliberate reversal. Both things occurred at the same time. In ‘c’ the glory of Yahweh is revealed and in the parallel it is described. The central point is that Yahweh is there and gives His words to Moses.

    We also note that there is here a gradually increasing crescendo as Moses goes up to meet with Yahweh.

    24.12 ‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “Come up to me into the Mount and be there. And I will give you the tables of stone, and the law (instruction) and the commandment which I have written that you may teach them.” ’

    ‘And Yahweh said to Moses.’ In contrast with ‘He said to Moses’ (24.1) this indicates a new section in the narrative. In verse 14 the elders were now clearly in the camp. Thus this is after the elders have left the mount and returned to the camp.

    ‘Come up to me into the Mount and be there.’ Now that the covenant feast was over the solemn presentation of the covenant by the Overlord, written by His own hand, would take place. Moses was called up to receive it solemnly from the hand of the Overlord. ‘And be there’ suggests that he would be there for some time.

    ‘The tables of stone, even the instruction and the commandment which I have written.’ The tablets of stone contained the instruction and the commandment. God’s covenant both guides and commands. We may possibly see here the distinction between the judgments (instruction) and the words (commandments) of Yahweh (see on 24.3).

    ‘The tables of stone --- which I have written.’ The tables of stone signified permanence. The writing of God stressed His personal involvement in the matter. They were written ‘with the finger of God’ (31.18; 32.16), that finger which had worked so powerfully in Egypt (8.19).

    ‘That you may teach them.’ It was to be Moses’ solemn responsibility to ensure that the words and judgments of Yahweh were made known to the people constantly.

    24.13-15 ‘And Moses rose up, and Joshua his servant, and Moses went up into the Mount of God , and he said to the elders, “You wait here for us until we come to you again. And behold Aaron and Hur are with you. Whoever has a cause let him come near to them.” And Moses went up into the Mount and the cloud covered the Mount.’

    In full obedience to his Lord Moses went up into the Mount taking with him Joshua, his ‘servant’. That Joshua does go is brought out in that Moses says ‘us’. But from then on we might think that Moses was alone. Ancient writings were often like this. They concentrated on the essentials. ‘Servant’ may be compared with the earlier ‘servants of Pharaoh’ (Exodus 8.21), his chief officials. Joshua has clearly been selected out to be groomed for the future. ‘The servant of Moses’ is now Joshua’s official and prestigious title (33.11; Numbers 11.28; Joshua 1.1).

    ‘You wait here.’ The words that follow show that this was not meant literally. It simply meant that they were not to go up any further. They were to wait at the bottom of the mountain and not go any higher. They were in fact to continue with their responsibility of judging the people, with Aaron and Hur designated as chief judges.

    ‘Until we come to you again.’ Moses did not know how long he would be and thus made provision for the judging of the people until he returned. But this suggests that he expected to be there for some time.

    ‘Aaron and Hur’. Compare 17.10-12. These were his two deputies. But Joshua was the heir apparent.

    ‘And Moses went up into the Mount.’ He climbed up higher taking Joshua with him, but did not yet enter the cloud.

    ‘And the cloud covered the Mount.’ This was preparatory to the appearing of the glory of Yahweh.

    24.16-18 ‘And the glory of Yahweh abode on Mount Sinai and the cloud covered it for six days, and the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud, and the appearance of the glory of Yahweh was like a devouring fire on the top of the Mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud and went up into the Mount. And Moses was in the Mount forty days and forty nights.’

    Moses did not go directly into the presence of Yahweh. He had to wait to be called. This period of waiting was probably in order to indicate that Moses had to be prepared before he could enter into God’s presence. Periods of waiting are often prescribed later as a part of the cleansing process. The waiting is for seven days. His cleansing is divinely perfect. Then he could be called and enter the cloud.

    ‘The glory of Yahweh, like a devouring fire (see on 19.18) ‘dwelt’ on the Mount for the seven days, manifested to the children of Israel (verse 17), who must have watched in awe as they realised that Moses and Joshua were up there with God. The glory was seen through the cloud.

    ‘And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud and went up into the Mount.’ The ascent has taken place in stages. Going up with Joshua, then leaving him, and then going further up, and now the final ascent to come into the very presence of God.

    ‘And Moses was in the Mount forty days and forty nights.’ ‘Forty days and forty nights’ was regularly a significant period when men of God waited on God at special moments in history (Moses - Exodus 24.18; 34,28; Deuteronomy 9.9, 18; - Elijah - 1 Kings 19.8; and Jesus Himself - Matthew 4.2 and parallels). The mention of both days and nights shows the intensity of the experience. It was unceasing.

    The phrase probably means ‘for longer than a moon period’, i.e. a month. ‘Forty days’ had probably already from earliest days (Genesis 7.4, 12, 17) begun to mean an unspecified period of a little over a month, as it certainly would later as a period of waiting for judgment (Ezekiel 4.6; Jonah 3.4) or as a more general period of waiting (Numbers 13.25; 1 Samuel 17.16 - both significant periods of waiting for Israel). It was thus a period which stressed the significance of the event.

    So Moses spent ‘forty days and forty nights’ with God. And Joshua was in the Mount with him. Here he would receive the tables of stone written with the finger of God, the final sealing of the covenant that Yahweh had made with His people. The Great Overlord will hand over to His people His version of the finalised covenant. He will then establish His throne (the Ark of the covenant) and His dwelling-place (the Tabernacle), both portable, among them. Details of this are given in the next section.

    Note for Christians.

    What significance has this covenant ceremony for us? It reminds us that we too have entered into solemn covenant with God when we became Christians. We too are solemnly bound by the covenant in His blood, a covenant enunciated for us in Hebrews 8.7-13 which has replaced the old by adding to it and improving it, for the old had been marred by misinterpretation and misuse. For the old covenant had come to have a different meaning and significance because of its misinterpretation. Thus it had to be replaced by a better covenant. But the one that was superseded was not the one that God made, but the misinterpretation of it that had changed it from what it was.

    End of note).

    Go to Home Page for further interesting articles
    Forward
    Back

    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

    Tent,Meeting,Ark,Covenant,showbread,shewbread,lampstand,candlestick,ephod,
    Urim,Thummim,Ephod,Brazen,altar,anointing,anointed,Passover,
    unleavened,bread,Israel,Genesis,Aaron,Yahweh,God,Sinai,wilderness,
    tent,meeting,cloud,pillar,Mount,fire,Moses,Joshua,book,covenant,ten,commandments