Deuteronomy 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Commentary by Mark Dunagan

DEUTERONOMY Chapters 17-26 Chapter 17 17:1-7 The apostate must be removed from the community. “Guilt has to be proved by diligent search and on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Since the case is a capital offense the witnesses must initiate the death sentence by casting the first stones, thereby exposing themselves to blood revenge should their testimony prove false” (Thompson p. 201). Apostasy was dealt with so severely because it was actually a form of treason and espionage. If idolatry was tolerated such would result Israel being removed from their homeland.

17:7 “So you shall purge the evil from your midst”-When we become involved in evil or when we are advocating what is evil—we have become evil ourselves.

Nothing is said about the sincerity or honesty of the person advocating idolatry, because such was a mute point. Error taught from sincere motives is just as dangerous, if not more, because the teacher seems more convincing, is easily to listen to, if he seems like a nice guy.

17:8-13 Cases that were too difficult for local magistrates were to be brought to the central sanctuary (later Jerusalem). “between one kind of homicide or another”-where it might be difficult to decide if an act was manslaughter or premeditated murder. The decision of this high court was final, and any rejection of its decision was a capital offense. “This made the rule of justice paramount in the land and helped prevent anarchy” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 294).

Rules Concerning Israel’s Future Kings 17:14-20 After Israel could no longer tolerate her unique position of being without an earthly king, she would ask for a king like all the other nations (1 Samuel 8:1-5). But in many ways her king wasn’t to be like the kings of other nations: 1. God would select her king (1 Samuel 16). “Therefore if the king failed, the reason for his failure would not lie in his lack of ability, but in his moral life” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 295). The office of the king would not be dependent upon either popularity or military strength; it would be filled by a man approved of God. Such should of reminded every king that he first had an

1

obligation to God and then to the people. 2. He must be an Israelite. In the Near East often powerful nations assumed the right to appointing kings for those nations under their control. 3. “he shall not multiply horses for himself”-horses were used primarily for chariot warfare. “Strategically, (from a human point of view) infantry were weak when facing a chariot force, but in the Israelite conception, their military strength lay not in the number or type of their troops but in the strength and presence of their God in battle” (Craigie p. 255). See Exodus 15:1,4; Judges 4-5. God wanted this king to depend upon Him, rather than his own resources. 4. “Neither shall be multiply wives for himself”-“Military aggrandizement, a large harem, and the amassing of wealth were typical of Eastern potentates” (Thompson p. 205). Many kings married foreign women to form political alliances, but if the king trusted in God, he wouldn’t need such alliances. In the case of Solomon, such women turned the king’s heart away from God (1 Kings 11:1ff). The accumulation of large amounts of silver and gold would also tend toward reliance upon riches rather than on the Lord.

Keep this verse in mind when people argue, “if the church is going to grow in our generation, then we must conform ourselves to the world”. God’s policy here to the future kings of Israel went against all conventional thinking. Kings which didn’t trust God, ended up forming alliances with other nations.

17:18-20 Our society feels that a religiously minded leader might be a handicap, but God has a different outlook. The real education of the king consisted of his copying, reading and following carefully the Law of God. Note that fearing the Lord is learned (19), and that the king was under the Law, not over it. True reverence for God would in turn keep him humble and mindful of his relationship to his subjects. Carefully note that God believed that His Law could be accurately copied by hand. “King and commoner alike were equal under the Law, and the king must recognize that fact if he wished to have an enduring dynasty” (Smith p. 512). Carefully note that when paganism entered Israel, the rights of the common man were lost (1 Kings 21:7). Far from depriving us of rights, when the Bible is respected in a society, our rights are protected.

Chapter 18 18:1-8 Unlike the other tribes, none of the Levites were given an allotment of land (i.e., there was no territory in Israel called “Levi”). 48 cities were set aside for the Levites (Num. 35:1-8). The priests and the Levites were sustained by the people’s offerings to the Lord. In verse 6 the rights of all Levites are guaranteed against any possible restrictions imposed by vested interests at the central sanctuary. Any Levite that wanted to assist the priests at Jerusalem was to be allowed to do so.

2

18:9-14 Detestable Practices: “makes his son or daughter pass through the fire”-i.e. human sacrifice. “The context indicates that the reference is not simply to child sacrifice, but to the offering of a child with the particular purpose of determining or discerning the course of events” (Craigie p. 260). “Divination”-a general word which seems to include all sorts of superstitious and pagan practices which attempted to penetrate the future or other mysteries. It is noteworthy that many of these things which are clearly condemned are very popular practices in our society today. “Not only are these practices an abomination to Yahweh, but anyone who practices them is likewise an abomination” (Thompson p. 212). Such practices aren’t cute or trendy, rather in the past they have brought entire civilizations under God’s judgment.

Point To Note: Such practices are detestable because: 1. They often involve immoral behavior, i.e., deception, lying, fornication etc…2. They are man’s attempt to circumvent God’s revelation to mankind. 3. They move people to trust in something other than God. 18:14 It is clear that such practices are absolutely useless, for they didn’t help the Canaanites!

18:15-16 In contrast to the vain practices of the Canaanites, the Israelites did have a real source of genuine information about the future or subjects that mere human wisdom can’t penetrate, i.e. prophets. The Israelites could be sure that a line of prophets would follow in succession after Moses, hence there wasn’t any need to turn to pagan practices. This verse infers that other Scripture would be given after Deuteronomy. The institution of this continued line of prophets was marked by the events at Mount Sinai, when the people, afraid to listen directly to the voice of God, requested Moses to act as a mediator on their behalf (16).

18:18 Such prophets would be Jewish, and they would speak the very words of God, i.e. be verbally inspired in their utterances (2 Peter 1:20-21; Jeremiah 1:69). This is why a prophet could say, “Thus says the Lord”. The ultimate prophet of this line, was Jesus (John 1:45; 5:46; Acts 3:22-26; 7:37).

18:19 “My words which he shall speak”-Disobedience to the prophet was rebellion against God. Obviously, the prophet wasn’t speaking his own opinion.

Because the words of the prophet were the very words of God, to ignore that word would lead to divine judgment, “I myself will hold him responsible”.

18:20-22 But there would be false prophets (2 Peter 2:1ff). The false prophet spoke presumptuously, i.e. blurted out his own opinions with no backing from God. Often the desire to please men lay behind such utterances (Isaiah 30:10,11). The false prophet also might try to bolster the authority of his 3

message by appealing to other gods, or claiming that such false deities were speaking through him. Note that the test given was very objective. What the true prophet said always came to pass. 100% accuracy was the mark of a person who truly spoke for God. “you shall not be afraid of him”-“or of any reprisals he might predict against them” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 297). This would also include the idea of, “do your duty and kill him”, in spite of his lofty claims.

Point To Note: Obviously, such a passage condemns people today who make predictions about the Lord’s return (1 Thess. 5:1-3). No room in left in Deut., for such a person to get off the hook. No excuses are to be accepted, i.e., “The Lord didn’t give me all the information, the Lord’s hand covered the last number in a date that He revealed to me, the Lord’s message was fuzzy, etc…”.

Chapter 19 19:1-13 Laws concerning the cities of refuge, what constituted unintentional homicide, and what was to be done with the person guilty of premeditated murder.

19:3 “You shall prepare the roads for yourself”-such cities were to be equally spaced throughout the land and access to them must be made as easy as possible. “no fugitive should be at a particular disadvantage under the law because of the location of his residence in relation to the cities of refuge” (Craigie p. 266). For the exact names of the cities of refuge see Joshua 20.

19:14-21 In many societies still, the limits of a man’s land are marked by a boundary stone or a heap of stones. “There is abundant evidence that other peoples had the same problem….In Israel, where every man held his piece of land as an inheritance from Yahweh, the removal of the landmark was an offense against Yahweh Himself” (Thompson pp. 216-217). Moving a neighbor’s boundary stone was equivalent to stealing his property.

Points To Note: 1.

God doesn’t have any mercy upon a false witness. Lying under oath is a serious crime (Exodus 20:16). 2. “the rest will hear and be afraid”-which contradicts modern theories which maintain that punishment does not deter crime. In addition, God doesn’t buy the argument that the criminal shouldn’t be punished, because after all, everyone in society has also

4

sinned. 3. “life for life, eye for eye”-Was given to encourage appropriate punishment of a criminal in cases where there might be a tendency to be either too lenient or too strict. The punishment ought to fit the crime, thus the slave who lost his eye was freed (Exodus 21:26). “Jesus did not deny the validity of this principle for the courtroom, but He denied its usage in personal relationships (Matthew 5:38-42). There should be no personal retaliation or revenge” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 298).

Chapter 20 This chapter deals with the rules that govern warfare. The priest was to address the troops prior to battle (20:1-4), and remind them that the size and number of the enemy was meaningless from the fact that God was on their side.

Exemptions were to be given to men who had just begun certain projects or relationships (20:5-7). Note the mercy that God extends to His people! “Only men ready and willing for battle were wanted. This was no conscripted army” (Gaebelein p. 128). Then those who were afraid were to be sent home (20:8-9).

“These people were not to be bullied into battle, scorned for their fear, or courtmartialled, they were to be sent home” (Craigie p. 274). All of this could be done, because victory in battle didn’t depend upon the size of the army, but rather in the fact that God was with them. “Since the best army was the one most committed to the Lord, anything or anyone who might affect the faith and confidence of the Israelite troops was to be removed” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 299).

20:10-15 Cities not in Canaan were to be first offered terms of peace.

20:16-18 Cities in Canaan were to be totally destroyed, including all their inhabitants. The reason for this destruction is spiritual (20:18). We can become so immoral that we do forfeit our right to exist. There are cases where love your neighbor demands that certain neighbors be removed from society. Lest we think that such is cruel: “But in those far-off centuries it would seem that if Israel had been dominated by an less tolerant attitude towards her pagan neighbors, she might well have been swallowed up by them” (Thompson p. 223).

20:19-20 On the practical side, fruit trees would offer food to the army. On the other hand, even war doesn’t give one the right to engage in wanton and meaningless destruction. Even in times of war, God expects His people to remain compassionate. God condemns the senseless destruction and the coarsening that often accompanies war. A time a war isn’t an excuse to sin.

Chapter 21 21:1-9 Atonement made for an unsolved murder. “For even though no murderer was found, the land and the people both incurred the guilt of shedding innocent blood” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 300). Sadly, our modern society doesn’t

5

seem to get too upset about unsolved crimes. An unsolved murder couldn’t be merely ignored.

21:10-14 Even women captured during times of war had definite rights. Such a woman, if previously married, could not be later sold as a slave.

Points To Note: 1.

Such a woman was given time a adjust to her new life. A soldiers marriage to a foreign captive could not take place immediately. “The full month allowed the captive woman a proper amount of time for mourning, and it also gave the prospective husband opportunity to reflect on his initial decision to take her as his wife. For with a shaved head she would be less attractive….This law underscored the value of human life; it contrasted with the terrible treatment of war captives common throughout the ancient Near East” (Bible Knowledge Comm. pp. 300-301). Note the woman is clearly protected from any kind of cruel, selfishness or rough treatment. Such a law only gave Israelite men the right to marry women who weren’t from the land of Canaan (Deut. 7:1-4; 20:16-18). The cutting of the hair, trimming of the nails, and new clothes probably symbolized the transition from foreigner to a member of the Israelite community, and one who was under God’s protection. In the long run, this is the best thing that could have happened to such a woman. For she was given the chance to learn about God along side a god-fearing husband.

21:15-17 The right of the firstborn is to be respected in all situations.

“Monogamy was always the divine ideal for marriage in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:20-24). Polygamy, though practiced by some, never appears in a positive light in the Old Testament; the Bible never describes a truly happy polygamous marriage. One reason was that one of the wives would always be loved more than the other (s)” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 301).

21:18-21 Here is a child who has continually rebelled against their parents instruction, even after being warned and disciplined. Note, that the parents aren’t punished. Yes, good parents can have some rebellious children. If this legislation seems cruel, just look at the damage that many similar individuals in our own time have done to their parents and society at large. Would you rather have this rebellious person executed, or, have innocent people hurt? Because in the final analysis, someone, either them or an innocent bystander is going to be hurt of killed. “The parents were not required to participate, perhaps out of a sense of delicacy, although more likely in order to stress the point that the power of life and death over their children was not theirs” (Thompson p. 231).

21:22-23 “hang him on a tree”-i.e. not for the purpose of putting him to death, rather, such was done after he was executed. This verse was used by some to prove that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah, i.e. the man hanging on a tree is accursed 6

of God. What such people failed to realize, is that Jesus was hanging upon a tree, not for His own sins, but for our sins. “having become a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Chapter 22 22:1-4 Compare with Exodus 23:4-5; Matthew 5:44 and Luke 10:30-37. God doesn’t accept the attitude, “I don’t want to get involved”, or, “I’m too busy”. God expects some positive action, the Law is far more than just a list of “thou shalt nots” “Legislation for the life-style in the Land of Promise went far beyond the rules to control wrongdoing” (Gaebelein p. 135).

22:5 This law would condemn certain forms of homosexuality. “Later writers, such as Lucian of Samosata and Eusebius, speak of the practice of masquerading in the worship of Astarte” (Thompson p. 234). A clear distinction between the sexes is to be maintained. In addition, God has no tolerance for a member of one gender wishing he or she had been born the opposite gender.

Such a verse would also condemn transvestitism.

22:6-7 Note the compassion demanded by the law. In addition, be impressed that the content of verse 5 is placed right next to verse 6. Lest anyone complain that the legislation in verse 5 is cruel or insensitive to the needs of people, the very next verse completely undermines such a claim. This law would also guarantee a future food source.

22:8 The roof of a house in the Near East was used as living space. Here we have a building code in the Law. A mandatory railing was required. The law reflects what we sometimes consider to be a very modern concern. Once again we see the value of human life and God’s attempt to keep His people from hurting themselves unnecessarily. We also see the truth that “I am my brother’s keeper”.

22:9 Perhaps the idea is that the distinctions that God ordained at Creation are to be preserved.

22:10 Apparently such was unfair to the donkey, because of the difference in strength between him and the ox.

22:12 Compare with Numbers 15:38-40.

22:13-19 “the blood-spotted bedclothes or garments….. were widely accepted in the Near East as indications or proof of virginity, are still accepted among some peoples today” (Gaebelein p. 138). Carefully note, the word of the husband wasn’t accepted as “gospel”. The newly married bride had definite rights, and such a case wasn’t allowed to degenerate into a “he said”, “she said”. Such a

7

law protected an innocent bride, discouraged premarital infidelity, and served to discourage immature men from making unfounded accusations.

Point To Note: Note the fairness. The husband who brought a false accusation was whipped and then fined! But in our society people can make all kinds of accusations, clog our court system with all kinds of frivolous lawsuits ---without any consequences. I like this law, because it punishes the person who never had a case to begin with.

22:22 When it came to adultery, both parties were executed.

22:23-24 Sexual relations with an engaged woman were also punishable by death.

22:25-27 Raping an engaged girl also merited the death penalty. “when the seduction took place in a city the woman’s consent to the act was assumed, since she might have called for help…Where the seduction took place in the open country it was presumed that the woman had been raped and that her cry for help was not heard” (Thompson p. 237).

22:28-29 This law served to deter unlawful sexual relations with a virgin. To a degree it protected the girl’s honor and assured her and her child if she became pregnant of permanent support. The woman was further protected by the law in that the man was prohibited from divorcing her.

Point To Note: Some may not like the above Law, but God in His wisdom and goodness realized that in the majority of such cases, this was the best option for the woman and possibility also the man. Remember, behind every command of God, is concern for our well being.

Chapter 23 23:1 “the assembly of the Lord”-i.e. probably the assembly of people gathered together for religious purposes. A person who became a true Israelite and who therefore shared in the worship of the Lord. Membership in such an assembly was confined to those who were physically perfect and were not the offspring of some unnatural union. Such laws first of all should of deterred Israel from any of the practices mentioned in this section. It certainly expressed God’s feelings on the practice of making men eunuchs. It also condemned the practice of selfcastration, which was involved in worshipping various heathen deities.

8

23:3 “The treatment of Ruth, however, by Boaz….demonstrates that this law was never meant to exclude one who said, ‘Your people will be my people and your God my God’ (Ruth 1:16)” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 303).

23:9-14 Advanced concepts concerning sanitation. And that God, where He was worshipped was to be treated with respect!

23:15-16 While slavery was legal, at the same time it wasn’t given any encouragement either. Apparently, the slave in view was a foreigner who had fled from an unbelieving master or a foreign country. This law contradicted the laws in the surrounding nations. In fact treaties in the ancient Near East included the provision that escaped slaves and other fugitives be returned. But Israel wasn’t to concern herself with the misplaced values of the heathen.

23:17-18 Prostitution, even under the guise of religious motives was to be completely rejected. A female prostitute is called a harlot and a male prostitute, “a dog”. Such religious prostitution was common among the Canaanites.

23:19-20 Such a law helped the poor in Israel make their way out of poverty.

23:24-25 Note the common sense in these laws.

Chapter 24 24:1 “because he has found some indecency in her”-cannot refer to adultery, for that carried the death sentence (22:22). Neither can this law refer to a time when Israel wouldn’t have the power to execute the death penalty: 1. The text is silent about such an application. 2. Jesus didn’t appeal to such an interpretation when confronted with a woman caught in adultery (John 8). 3.

Jesus tells us the reason that God gave this command, “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8).

Point To Note: God isn’t approving of such a divorce, God isn’t telling a man to divorce his wife, and neither is God advising the divorced women to remarry. Rather God is describing a situation that could arise, and then He will give the legislation that seeks to limit the damage of such a situation in verse 4. Many times God will describe a situation, “If man hits another man…etc”, but such language was never intended to convey the idea that God approved of the situation.

9

24:4 “then”-here are the rules that such a man and woman must abide by if they allow the above situation to happen. “since she has been defiled”-note, the woman is spoken of as being defiled, even though her second husband had died (24:3 “or if the later husband dies”).

The second marriage is dissolved and yet she still is defiled. Obviously, what had defiled her was the initial divorce.

Points To Note: 1.

Such a law would discourage a man from hastily divorcing his wife. It would also tend to keep men from marrying a divorced woman. 2. The words in this section, “defiled”, “abomination”, “sin” (24:4)—could suggest that everything up to verse 4 didn’t have God’s approval (Malachi 2:11-14).

“The man then sends the woman away with a certificate of divorce. This is not something the law prescribes but assumes” (Ridderbos p. 233). 3. “after she has been defiled”—the language suggests adultery (Lev. 18:20). The sense is that the woman’s remarriage after the first divorce is similar to adultery in that the woman cohabits with another man” (Craigie p. 305). “defiled” is an unusual form of the verb occurring only here; but the stative verb occurs frequently with the meaning “to be unclean, impure, or defiled” and specifically depicts the result of adultery in Lev. 18:20 and Numbers 5:13-14,20. So here it refers to whatever defilement is associated with adultery” (Gaebelein p. 146). All of this seems to agree with Jesus’ assessment that verses 1-3 were allowed because of the hardness of men’s hearts. But are people with hard hearts right with God?

24:5 So much for the idea that women were viewed as property in the OT. “Give happiness to his wife whom he has taken”-God expected married couples to be in love and enjoy their marriage (Ecc. 9:9).

24:6 Designed to protect the poor man. Such a tool wasn’t to be taken as collateral for a loan, seeing that it would deprive a man of making his daily bread. In every Israelite household, such stones were used to grind grain into flour. Even taking only the upper stone would make such a task impossible.

24:10-12 The dignity of the borrower was preserved by prohibiting the lender from entering his house and taking anything he might want as a pledge.

24:16 Personal responsiblity. Blame wasn’t to be shifted. Just because a society doesn’t have the courage to properly punish a rebellious youth, doesn’t give that society a right to punish the parents.

10

24:19-22 Something was to be left for the poor. “In this way the needy were not reduced to the humiliation of begging or seeking welfare. They could still work for their food” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 306). Generous that enables the poor person to keep their self-respect and be a productive member of society.

Chapter 25 25:1-3 Even when it came to a beating, administering justice was never to become an excuse for cruelty. Beatings were to be the application of justice and not rage. Give a man the punishment due for his crime. A proper beating would teach him a lesson and at the same time such a man’s dignity could still remain in tact. Compare with Ephesians 6:4.

25:4 Fairness to animals. While the animal was breaking up the grain he was to be allowed to eat. The same principle applies to human workers (1 Cor. 9:9). “If God cares about a working ox, how much more He cares about human laborers, especially those laboring for His kingdom” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 306).

25:5-10 The Levirate marriage. It is the only kind of circumstance were the marriage to a close relative was allowed.

25:7-10 “These actions would show her strong disapproval of his refusal. This embarrassment of him, along with the stigma of being known for his refusal, illustrates how God used social pressure to motivate His people to obedience” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 307).

25:11-12 The end doesn’t justify the means. This is the only case of punishment by mutilation in the Law. 25:17-19 Time doesn’t deter God’s judgments. Compare with 1 Samuel 15.

Chapter 26 26:1-11 Offering of the first-fruits. Which should of reminded the people that without God, none of the blessings they were enjoying would have been possible. Instead of resenting such a sacrifice, if reminded them that such was a small price for what they were presenting enjoying.

26:5 “My father was a wandering Aramean”-may refer to Jacob or Abraham.

When Abraham left Ur, he settled for a time in Haran, a city in Aram (Genesis 11:28-32). Both Isaac and Jacob married women from the Aramean branch of the family. The word translated “wandering” usually meant “perishing” or “ailing”.

Jacob was already 130 years old when he went down into Egypt after which he

11

lived only 17 more years. In addition, the entire family was on the verge of starvation at the time.

26:12-15 Offering of the tithe of the third-year 26:16-19 The imperative of fully submitting to God with an enthusiastic heart.

Closing Comments I am impressed with the tremendous amount of compassion which is found in the laws in this section. “This humanitarian spirit is a feature of Deuteronomy.

Generous treatment of the slave (15:12-18), the stranger, the fatherless and the widow (10:18; 24:17,19,20,21; 27:19), the Levite (26:12,13) is required of Israel.

The gleanings of the field are to left to the poor (24:19ff). The law referring loans and pledges is gernous (24:10-13). Hired servants are to be generously treated (24:14ff). Fruit trees are to be spared during siege warfare (20:19f); roofs are to be protected by a railing (22:8); family millstones are never to be taken in pledge (24:6); excessive beating is forbidden (25:1-3); kindness is to be shown to animals (25:4)� (Thompson p. 221). Yes, the Law is holy, and righteous and good! (Romans 7:12)

12