Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 23:1
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Compare Lev 21:17-24. Such persons, exhibiting a mutilation of that human nature which was made in Gods image, were rejected from the covenant entirely. However, they could be proselytes (compare Act 8:27). The Old Testament itself foretells Isa 56:3-5 the removal of this ban when under the kingdom of Messiah the outward and emblematic perfection and sanctity of Israel should be fulfilled in their inner meaning by the covenanted presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XXIII
Neither eunuchs, bastards, Ammonites, nor Moabites, shall be
incorporated with the genuine Israelites, 1-3.
The reason why the Ammonites and Moabites were excluded, 4-6.
Edomites and Egyptians to be respected, 7.
Their descendants in the third generation may be incorporated
with the Israelites, 8.
Cautions against wickedness when they go forth against their
enemies, 9.
To keep the camp free from every defilement, and the reason why,
10-14.
The slave who had taken refuge among them is not to be delivered
up to his former master, 15, 16.
There shall be no prostitutes nor sodomites in the land, 17.
The hire of a prostitute or the price of a dog is not to be
brought into the house of God, 18.
The Israelites shall not lend on usury to each other, 19;
but they may take usury from strangers, 20.
Vows must be diligently paid, 21-23.
In passing through a vine yard or field a man may eat of the
grapes or corn, but must carry away none with him, 24, 25.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXIII
Verse 1. Shall not enter into the congregation, c.] If by entering the congregation be meant the bearing a civil office among the people, such as magistrate, judge, &c., then the reason of the law is very plain no man with any such personal defect as might render him contemptible in the sight of others should bear rule among the people, lest the contempt felt for his personal defects might be transferred to his important office, and thus his authority be disregarded. The general meaning of these words is, simply, that the persons here designated should not be so incorporated with the Jews as to partake of their civil privileges.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Heb. wounded by compression, or attrition, or contusion, to wit, of the stones, which was the course the Gentiles took with infants to make them eunuchs. And these eunuchs and bastards, Deu 23:2, seem to be not only those of other nations, as some understand it, without any foundation for such restriction, but also of the Israelites; the reason of this law being the same in all, to wit, that God would bring into disgrace those heathenish practices of making eunuchs, and getting bastards, which doubtless he would especially do among his own people. Shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; which phrase cannot be understood so that they might not come into the church, or holy assemblies, to worship God, to pray, or hear, &c., because proselytes of any nation, being admitted to common church privileges, no less than the Jews, (as is evident from Exo 12:48; Lev 22:18; Num 9:14; 15:15) it were absurd to think that any of the Israelites, for such a natural or involuntary defect, should be shut out from all Gods ordinances; nor so that they were to be put out of the muster-roll of Gods people, or to lose the privileges common to all Israelites, to wit, the benefit of the year of release or jubilee, which it is not probable the Israelites were to forfeit merely for this unculpable imperfection; but either,
1. That they should not be incorporated into the body of Israel by marriage; for so this phrase may seem to have been understood by the whole congregation of Israel, Neh 13:1-3, 23-25; although at that time the government was in part in the hands of such persons as are here mentioned, Deu 23:3, or of their children, seeing it is apparent from Ezr 10 that many priests and Levites and other officers and rulers of Israel were married to strange women, whose issue are by this law excluded from all share in the government, and for that, among other reasons, Nehemiah separated them from Israel by virtue of the law here following. Or,
2. That they should not be admitted to honours and offices either in the church or commonwealth of Israel; and so
the congregation of the Lord doth not here signify, as commonly it doth, the body of the people, but the society of the elders or rulers of the people, who, as they represent the whole congregation, and act in their name, and for their service and good, so they are sometimes called by the name of the congregation, as Num 35:12,24,25; Jos 20:6,9; 1Ki 8:5, compared with Deu 23:1-3; and 1Ch 13:1,2,4; 29:1,10,20, compared with 1Ch 28:1; 29:6; and of the congregation of God, as it is in the Hebrew of Psa 82:1. Howsoever, seeing they are oft called the congregation, they may very well be called in a special manner the congregation of the Lord, because they were appointed by God, and act in his name and stead, and for his work and service, and did also oft assemble near the tabernacle, where God was eminently present. Add to this, that the Hebrew word kahal generally signifies a congregation or company of men met together; and therefore this cannot so conveniently be meant of all the body of the people, which could never meet in one place, but of the chief rulers, which frequently did so. Nor is it strange that eunuchs are excluded from government, partly because such persons are commonly observed to want that courage which is necessary for a governor, Exo 18:21; and partly because as such persons ordinarily were despicable, so the office and authority in their hands was likely to be exposed to the same contempt.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-3. He that is wounded . . ., shallnot enter into the congregation of the Lord“To enter intothe congregation of the Lord” means either admission to publichonors and offices in the Church and State of Israel, or, in the caseof foreigners, incorporation with that nation by marriage. The rulewas that strangers and foreigners, for fear of friendship or marriageconnections with them leading the people into idolatry, were notadmissible till their conversion to the Jewish faith. But thispassage describes certain limitations of the general rule. Thefollowing parties were excluded from the full rights and privilegesof citizenship: (1) EunuchsIt was a very ancient practice forparents in the East by various arts to mutilate their children, witha view to training them for service in the houses of the great. (2)BastardsSuch an indelible stigma in both these instances wasdesigned as a discouragement to practices that were disgraceful, buttoo common from intercourse with foreigners. (3) Ammonites andMoabitesWithout provocation they had combined to engage asoothsayer to curse the Israelites; and had further endeavored, byensnaring them into the guilt and licentious abominations ofidolatry, to seduce them from their allegiance to God.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He that is wounded in the stones,…. In any of them, not accidentally, but purposely; which are crushed and bruised by the hands of men, with a design to make him unfit for generation, or to make an eunuch of him:
or that hath his privy member cut by himself or another, and is a thorough eunuch by the hands of men; for of such eunuchs that are made by men, and not born so, the law speaks; so Maimonides interprets it f; [See comments on Mt 19:12]
shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; which is to be understood not of the sanctuary of the Lord, or of being refused admittance into the church of God, and to join in religious rites, and partake of sacred ordinances, which all Israelites, and strangers that were proselytes, had a right unto; such might bring their offerings, keep the passover, c. Ex 12:48 nor of the commonwealth of Israel, as if unfit to be members of civil society it cannot be thought that such defects should abridge them of their civil rights and privileges: but by the congregation is to be understood the elders, judges, and representatives of the people, that met together in some one place to execute judgment; see
Nu 35:12, into which such persons were not to be admitted; either because disgraceful and dishonourable, or because of the influence such defects have on their minds, they thereby becoming effeminate, irresolute, and wanting courage, as well as in opposition to the customs and usages of the Heathens, with whom it was common to admit such persons to civil offices; hence the word eunuch is sometimes used for an officer, Ge 37:36 and elsewhere; the Jews g restrain this law to marriage, but unnecessarily.
f Hilchot lssure Biah, c. 16. sect. 8. g Targum Jon. in loc. Misn. Yebamot, c. 8. sect. 2, 4, 5, 6. Maimon. Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 49.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Right of Citizenship in the Congregation of the Lord. – Deu 23:1. Into the congregation of the Lord there was not to come, i.e., not to be received, any person who was mutilated in his sexual member. , literally wounded by crushing, i.e., mutilated in this way; Vulg. eunuchus attritis vel amputatis testiculis . Not only animals (see at Lev 22:24), but men also, were castrated in this way. was one whose sexual member was cut off; Vulg. abscisso veretro . According to Mishnah Jebam. vi. 2, “ contusus est omnis, cujus testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel certe unus eorum; exsectus ( ), cujus membrum virile praecisum est .” In the modern East, emasculation is generally performed in this way (see Tournefort, Reise. ii. p. 259, and Burckhardt, Nubien, pp. 450, 451). The reason for the exclusion of emasculated persons from the congregation of Jehovah, i.e., not merely from office ( officio et publico magistratu, Luth.) and from marriage with an Israelitish woman ( Fag., C. a Lap., and others), but from admission into the covenant fellowship of Israel with the Lord, is to be found in the mutilation of the nature of man as created by God, which was irreconcilable with the character of the people of God. Nature is not destroyed by grace, but sanctified and transformed. This law, however, was one of the ordinances intended for the period of infancy, and has lost its significance with the spread of the kingdom of God over all the nations of the earth (Isa 56:4).
Deu 23:2 So also with the , i.e., not persons begotten out of wedlock, illegitimate children generally (lxx, Vulg.), but, according to the Talmud and the Rabbins, those who were begotten in incest or adultery (cf. Ges. thes. p. 781). The etymology of the word is obscure. The only other place in which it occurs is Zec 9:6; and it is neither contracted from and (according to the Talmud, and Hitzig on Zec 9:6), nor from ( Geiger Urschr. p. 52), but in all probability is to be derived from a root , synonymous with the Arabic word “to be corrupt, or foul.” The additional clause, “ not even in the tenth generation,” precludes all possibility of their ever being received. Ten is the number of complete exclusion. In Deu 23:3, therefore, “ for ever ” is added. The reason is the same as in the case of mutilated persons, namely, their springing from a connection opposed to the divine order of the creation.
Deu 23:3-8 Also no Ammonite or Moabite was to be received, not even in the tenth generation; not, however, because their forefathers were begotten in incest (Gen 19:30.), as Knobel supposes, but on account of the hostility they had manifested to the establishment of the kingdom of God. Not only had they failed to give Israel a hospitable reception on its journey (see at Deu 2:29), but they (viz., the king of the Moabites) had even hired Balaam to curse Israel. In this way they had brought upon themselves the curse which falls upon all those who curse Israel, according to the infallible word of God (Gen 12:3), the truth of which even Balaam was obliged to attest in the presence of Balak (Num 24:9); although out of love to Israel the Lord turned the curse of Balaam into a blessing (cf. Num 22-24). For this reason Israel was never to seek their welfare and prosperity, i.e., to make this an object of its care (“to seek,” as in Jer 29:7); not indeed from personal hatred, for the purpose of repaying evil with evil, since this neither induced Moses to publish the prohibition, nor instigated Ezra when he put the law in force, by compelling the separation of all Ammonitish, Moabitish, and Canaanitish wives from the newly established congregation in Jerusalem (Ezr 9:12). How far Moses was from being influenced by such motives of personal or national revenge is evident, apart from the prohibition in Deu 2:9 and Deu 2:19 against making war upon the Moabites and Ammonites, from the command which follows in Deu 23:8 and Deu 23:9 with reference to the Edomites and Egyptians. These nations had also manifested hostility to the Israelites. Edom had come against them when they desired to march peaceably through his land (Num 20:18.), and the Pharaohs of Egypt had heavily oppressed them. Nevertheless, Israel as to keep the bond of kindred sacred (“he is thy brother”), and not to forget in the case of the Egyptians the benefits derived from their sojourn in their land. Their children might come into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation, i.e., the great-grandchildren of Edomites of Egyptians, who had lived as strangers in Israel (see at Exo 20:5). Such persons might be incorporated into the covenant nation by circumcision.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Laws of Separation. | B. C. 1451. |
1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: 4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. 5 Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee. 6 Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. 7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. 8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.
Interpreters are not agreed what is here meant by entering into the congregation of the Lord, which is here forbidden to eunuchs and to bastards, Ammonites and Moabites, for ever, but to Edomites and Egyptians only till the third generation. 1. Some think they are hereby excluded from communicating with the people of God in their religious services. Though eunuchs and bastards were owned as members of the church, and the Ammonites and Moabites might be circumcised and proselyted to the Jewish religion, yet they and their families must lie for some time under marks of disgrace, remembering the rock whence they were hewn, and must not come so near the sanctuary as others might, nor have so free a communion with Israelites. 2. Others think they are hereby excluded from bearing office in the congregation: none of these must be elders or judges, lest the honour of the magistracy should thereby be stained. 3. Others think they are excluded only from marrying with Israelites. Thus the learned bishop Patrick inclines to understand it; yet we find that when this law was put in execution after the captivity they separated from Israel, not only the strange wives, but all the mixed multitude, see Neh. xiii. 1-2. With the daughters of these nations (though out of the nations of Canaan), it should seem, the men of Israel might marry, if they were completely proselyted to the Jewish religion; but with the men of these nations the daughters of Israel might not marry, nor could the men be naturalized otherwise than as here provided.
It is plain, in general, that disgrace is here put,
I. Upon bastards and eunuchs, Deu 23:1; Deu 23:2. By bastards here the Jewish writers understand, not all that were born of fornication, or out of marriage, but all the issue of those incestuous mixtures which are forbidden, Lev. xviii. And, though it was not the fault of the issue, yet, to deter people from those unlawful marriages and unlawful lusts, it was very convenient that their posterity should thus be made infamous. By this rule Jephthah, though the son of a harlot, a strange woman (Jdg 11:1; Jdg 11:2), yet was not a bastard in the sense of this law. And as for the eunuchs, though by this law they seemed to be cast out of the vineyard as dry trees, which they complain of (Isa. lvi. 3), yet it is here promised (v. 5) that if they took care of their duty to God, as far as they were admitted, by keeping his sabbaths and choosing the things that pleased him, the want of this privilege should be made up to them with such spiritual blessings as would entitle them to an everlasting name.
II. Upon Ammonites and Moabites, the posterity of Lot, who, for his outward convenience, had separated himself from Abraham, Gen. xiii. 11. And we do not find that he or his ever joined themselves again to the children of the covenant. They are here cut off to the tenth generation, that is, (as some think it is explained), for ever. Compare Neh. xiii. 1. The reason of this quarrel which Israel must have with them, so as not to seek their peace (v. 6), is because of the unkindness they had now lately done to the camp of Israel, notwithstanding the orders God had given not to distress or vex them, Deu 2:9; Deu 2:19. 1. It was bad enough that they did not meet them with bread and water in the way (v. 4), that they did not as allies, or at least as neutral states, bring victuals into their camp, which they should have been duly paid for. It was well that God’s Israel did not need their kindness, God himself following them with bread and water. However this omission of the Ammonites should be remembered against their nation in future ages. Note, God will certainly reckon, not only with those that oppose his people, but with those that do not help and further them, when it is in the power of their hand to do it. The charge at the great day is for an omission: I was hungry, and you gave me no meat. 2. The Moabites had done worse, they hired Balaam to curse Israel, v. 4. It is true God turned the curse into a blessing (v. 5), not only changing the word in Balaam’s mouth, but making that really turn to the honour and advantage of Israel which was designed for their ruin. But though the design was defeated, and overruled for good, the Moabites’ wickedness was not the less provoking. God will deal with sinners, but according to their endeavours, Ps. xxviii. 4.
III. The Edomites and Egyptians had not so deep a mark of displeasure put upon them as the Moabites and Ammonites had. If an Edomite or Egyptian turned proselyte, his grand-children should be looked upon as members of the congregation of the Lord to all intents and purposes, Deu 23:7; Deu 23:8. We should think that the Edomites had been more injurious to the Israelites than the Ammonites, and deserved as little favour from them (Num. xx. 20), and yet “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, as thou must an Ammonite, for he is thy brother.” Note, The unkindness of near relations, though by many worst taken, yet should with us, for that reason, because of the relation, be first forgiven. And then, as to the Egyptians, here is a strange reason given why they must not be abhorred: “Thou wast a stranger in their land, and therefore, though hardly used there, be civil to them, for old acquaintance’ sake.” They must not remember their bondage in Egypt for the keeping up of any ill will to the Egyptians, but only for the magnifying of Gods power and goodness in their deliverance.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DEUTERONOMY – CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
Verses 1-6:
“Congregation,” gahal, also translated “assembly, and multitude.”
Bible scholars are disagreed as to the meaning of “the congregation of the Lord.” Some say it refers to the entire nation of Israel; others say it refers to the religious assembly of those gathered for sacred or worship purposes. The latter view appears to be more in harmony with this text.
The text lists four classes of persons who were to be excluded from the “congregation of the Lord.” These were to be excluded “unto the tenth generation,” or indefinitely:
(1) One who was mutilated, either by the crushing of his testicles, or by excision of his penis. Such mutilation was often a religious rite among the heathen.
(2) A “bastard,” mamzer, “spurious,” the son of an harlot. The Talmud defines the term as one begotten in adultery or incest.
(3) An Ammonite.
(4) A Moabite.
Two reasons are given for the exclusion of the latter two:
(1) Their inhospitable attitude toward Israel in their wilderness journey;
12) Their hiring of Balaam to curse Israel, Num 22:23-24.
In addition, Israel was forbidden to promote the welfare of these two nations.
This was a national curse, and applied to the nations as such. It did not apply to individuals in those nations. For example, Ruth the Moabitess was accepted into Israel, and became a link in the ancestral chain of David, Solomon, and of Jesus Himself, Rth 4:13; Rth 4:18-22; Mat 1:5; Mat 1:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1 He that is wounded. What is here delivered respecting those who are mutilated, and who are bastards, has a similar object; lest the Church of God should be onctaminate by foul stains, and thus religion should lose its honor. Moses rejects from the congregation of the faithful two sorts of men, viz, eunuchs and bastards. But, before we treat of the subject itself, the definition of the words is to be considered. The first question is, that it is to enter into the congregation; the second, what it is to be wounded in the stones; the third, who are the ממזרים, mamzerim, which we have translated bastards, ( spurios ). Many understand that both are rejected from the church, lest they should undertake any public office in it; others, lest they should marry wives of the seed of Abraham; because it would not be fair that women should be thrown away upon bastards, ( Lat, mamzeris 😉 and it would be absurd that those who were created to multiply God’s people, should marry impotent persons, ( effoeminatis ). But both these opinions appear to me to be tame. For what is afterwards added respecting certain foreign nations cannot be so taken, that no government or dignity should be entrusted to them; besides, by “the congregation of the Lord,” the purity and holiness of religion is sufficiently expressed. I do not doubt, then, but that Moses prohibits those who are defiled by these two stains from communicating in the sacrifices. For although they were circumcised as well as the rest of the chosen people, still God would have them bear this mark of their disgrace, that they might be an example to others, and that the people might be more diligent in preserving themselves from all pollution. This, then, is to be concluded that the privilege which was peculiar to the legitimate Israelites, was to be denied them of being participators and associates (19) in the sacrifices. As to the wounded testicles, the Jews dispute more curiously, in my opinion, that the subject warrants, and after all miss the right meaning. For God intended nothing else than to exclude from the congregation of His people, wherever holy assemblies were held, those who were mutilated or defective in the genital organs; although by synecdoche, He comprehends more than are specified. Finally, by condemning this external bodily defect He commends the excellency of His people that they may remember themselves to be His chosen property, not that they should pride themselves upon it (20) but that the holiness of their life may correspond with such high nobility.
(19) “ Et d’entrer au parvis pour faire service solennel a Dieu;” and to enter into the court to perform solemn service to God — Fr.
(20) “ Mais afin de se maintenir en sa grace par sainetete de vie;” but that they might keep themselves in His favor by holiness of life— Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE RECAPITULATION OF THE LAW
Deu 5:1 to Deu 26:19 record for us a recapitulation of the Law. The study of this section sets out clearly certain fundamental truths.
The Decalog is repeated with significant variations. Chapter 5, fundamental to all the laws of God is the Decalog. In Exodus, Moses delivered the same as he brought it from the tip of the fingers Divine. In Deuteronomy, the Law is given again. From the first to the tenth commandment, the very language of Exodus is employed, save in the instance of the fourth. Here, the reason assigned to the Jew for keeping the Sabbath, is strangely and significantly changed, namely, from because the Lord in six days made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day, to Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day (Deu 5:15).
This change is so strange and so unexpected that it arrests immediate attention and demands adequate explanation. Why did God shift the reason for keeping the Sabbath from the finished creation to a completed redemption? The answer is not difficult. In the Divine plan, redemption is a far greater event than creation; the soul of man exceeds the weight of the world; for that matter, of all worlds. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. The Law was given for Jews; the Gentiles were never in bondage to it, and above all, believing Gentiles are not bound by it. To them, the Law is not a great external or outside force created for practices of restraint. Its spirit is transcribed to their souls rather; they walk at liberty while seeking Divine precepts. This is not to inveigh against the Law. The Law is just, and true and good, but by Law no man has ever been redeemed. It is to exalt Grace, which God hath revealed through Jesus Christ, in whom men have redemption from sin. If I only love my father and mother because the Law commands it, I do not love them at all; if I refrain from making images and bowing down before them because this is the demand of the Law, my heart may yet be as full of idolatry as a heathen temple. Redemption is not by the Law; it is by Grace in Jesus Christ!
The early Church was shortly called upon to settle this question of salvation by Law or Grace, and in the Jerusalem Conference Peter rose up and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:7-10).
Later he said, We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (not by Law) we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11). Mark you, in that very sentence, Peter, the Apostle, proves his realization of the fact that the Law had failed as a savior and the very Jew himself had hope alone in grace. How strange, then, for men of the Twentieth Century to turn back to Law and proclaim the Law as though it were a redeemer, and protest that men who ignore the Jewish Saturday as the Sabbath will plunge themselves into the pit thereby, when the Law never saved! The keeping of the Sabbath was the one Law that contained in itself no ethical demand. The Law to worship, the Law to honor father and mother, the Law against killing, stealing and covetousnessthese are all questions of right and wrong; but to tithe time by the keeping of the Sabbath was a command solely in the interest of mans physical life. When, therefore, by the pen of inspiration the reason for it was shifted from a finished creation to a finished redemption, the act was lifted at once to a high spiritual level and became a symbol of the day when Christ, risen from the grave, should have completed redemptions plan. That great fortune to mankind fell out on the first day of the week, creating not so much a Christian Sabbath as making forever a memorial day for redemption itself, for the eighth day, or the first day of the week, clearly indicated the new order of things, or the new creation through Christ.
We have no sympathy whatever with secularizing each one of the seven days; but we would have the first day of the week kept in the spirit of rejoicing as redemptions memorial. On that day our Lord rose from the dead; on that day He met his disciples again and again; on that day the brethren at Troas assembled with the Apostles and broke bread; on that day the Christians laid aside their offerings; on that day they met for prayer and breaking of breadthe fellowship of the saints; on that day John was caught up in the spirit and witnessed the marvels recorded in his apocalyptic vision. Oh, what a day! No legal bondage, for what have we to do with holy days, sabbaths and new moons; but salvations memorial, a day of special service to the Son of God, our Saviour, a day for the souls rejoicing in Jesus. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
But as we pass on in the study of this section of Scripture, we find Moses defends the Decalog in character and consequence. He reminds them of the glory out of which the voice spake (Deu 5:24). He reminds them of the obligation in the words themselves (Deu 5:32). He reminds them of the relationship of the possession of the land to obedience of the precepts. He pleads with them as a father, Hear, therefore, O Israel (Deu 6:4). He anticipates the day of prophecy and begs that these words have place in their hearts (Deu 6:6), to be diligently taught to their children (Deu 6:7); bound for a sign upon their hands and frontlets between their eyes, lest they be forgotten (Deu 6:8); written upon the posts of the house and on the gates, where they could not be unobserved (Deu 6:9). Moses knew the relationship of law-keeping to national living. It is doubtful if modernists now have or will ever again entertain the same sacred reverence for Law that characterized the ancients, even the heathen of far-off days.
We cannot forget how Socrates, when he was sentenced to death and, after an imprisonment of thirty days, was to drink the juice of the hemlock, spent his time preparing for the end; friends conceived and executed plans for his escape and earnestly endeavored to prevail upon him to avail himself of the opportunity, but he answered, That would be a crime to violate the law even when the sentence is unjust. I would rather die than do evil. If a heathen philosopher could treat unjust laws with such reverence, Moses was justified in pleading with his people to regard the laws that were true and just and good, and such were the mandates of Deuteronomy.
It is easy enough for one to pick out some one of these precepts and, by detaching it from its context, create the impression that it was foolish or superficial or even utterly unjust; but when one reads the whole Book, he sees the effectual relationship of laws, general and particular, to the life Israel was leading, and for that matter, catches the supreme spiritual significance of the same as they interpret themselves in the light of New Testament teaching. There is not a warning that was not needed, nor an exhortation which, if heeded, would have failed to profit the people. It all came to one conclusion for Israel.
What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (Deu 10:12)?
And as there was not a law in the Old Testament but was fitted for the profit of Israel, so there is not a command in the New Testament but looks to the conquest of the Christian soul.
Among these enactments were personal and significant suggestions. They gave dietary and sanitary suggestions (Deuteronomy 14); they established the Sabbatic year (Deuteronomy 13); they fixed the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16); they set forth the character of the offerings (Deuteronomy 17); they determined the duties of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18); they gave direction concerning the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19); they determined the way of righteous warfare (chap. 20); they established a court of inquest (Deuteronomy 21); they announced the law of brotherhood (Deuteronomy 22); they descended to the minute instances of social life and regulations of the same (Deuteronomy 23); they dealt with the great and difficult question of divorce (Deuteronomy 24); they ended (Deuteronomy 23) in an almost unlimited series of regulations concerning the social life of the people knowing a wilderness experience, including the law of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26).
It is interesting to study not alone the laws enacted here, but the penalties declared, including the blessings and curses from Ebal to Gerizim. There is about them all an innate righteousness that has been unknown to those purely human codes for which God never assumed responsibility. From the curse against bribery to the curse against brutal murder to this day the sentences are justified in the judgment of the worlds most thoughtful men.
In all they contrast the injustice and inordinately severe punishments often afflicted by godless governments. Plutarch, in writing about Solon, tells us that he repealed the laws of Draco except those concerning murder. Such was the severity of their punishments in proportion to the offense that we are amazed as we read them. If one was convicted of idleness, death was the penalty. If one stole a few apples or potherbs, he must surely die, and by as ignominious a method as did the murderer. And out of that grew the saying of Demades that Draco wrote his laws, not with ink but with blood. And when Draco was asked why such severe penalties, he answered, Small ones deserve it, and I can find no greater for the most heinous. Such were human laws in contrast to these laws Divine.
But a further study of these laws involves a third lesson.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.From the sanctification of domestic relations, to which laws of marriage and chastity in the previous chapter pointed, Moses now proceeds to legislate for the purity of the congregation and the camp.
Deu. 23:1-8. Rights of Citizenship in Israel. Forbidden to the mutilated in his sexual member (Deu. 23:1). Mutilation practised among Gentiles, but unnatural in those made in Gods image and chosen to be Gods people (Lev. 22:24). Bastard (Deu. 23:2). Offspring of incest and adultery, yen.collective bodies of contemporaries (cf. Gen. 15:16; Exo. 1:6); tenth complete number used in highest sense, and signifies an indefinite period. Ammonites and Moabites excluded. Perhaps reference to their incestuous origin (Gen. 19:30-38). But they both combined against Israel without provocation; hired Balaam to curse, and brought upon themselves perpetual rejection (cf. Num. 24:9; Num. 22:5-6). Seek (Deu. 23:6). Invite them to friendship, nor care for their welfare (Ezr. 9:12; Jer. 29:7). Edomites and Egyptians had opposed (Num. 20:18; Exo. 20:5), but Israel were to be friendly with them and not forget former hospitality. Third gen. (Deu. 23:8), i.e. the great grandchildren who had lived strangers in Israel might be incorporated.
Deu. 23:9-14. Parity of the camp must be preserved in war. Wicked thing states in Deu. 23:10-13 uncleanness of body; theft, violence, and sins common to life in camps (Jos. 6:10; Jos. 6:18). Then follow sanitary regulations to secure cleanliness of person and habits. The necessities of nature provided for outside the camp (Deu. 23:12-13). Walk. Fit for Gods presence. Unclean thing. Nakedness of anythingnothing to be ashamed of; no want of reverence in not removing evil must be displayed.
Deu. 23:15-18. Toleration and non-toleration. A slave running away from the tyranny of his master, not to be given up, but to dwell in the land (Deu. 23:15-16). Prostitutes, male and female, descended from Israel not to be tolerated, i.e., not allowed to give themselves up to prostitution as religious worship (Deu. 23:17-18). Dog is figurative (cf. Rev. 22:15) and equivalent to the Sodomite of the verse preceding (cf. Mic. 1:7; Bar. 6:43). Speak. Com.
Deu. 23:19-25. Theocratic rights of citizenship. Of a brother (i.e., countryman) an Israelite was not to take interest for money, food, or any goods lent to him. Stranger, not Israelites (cf. Exo. 22:25; Lev. 25:36-37). Vows fulfilled without delay (cf. Exo. 22:29; Num. 30:2; Ecc. 5:4-5.) For general law of vows (cf. Leviticus 27). Hanger might be satisfied in vineyards and cornfields of a neighbour, bat nothing to be carried away in a vessel. Pluck (Deu. 23:25 cf. Mat. 12:1; Luk. 6:1). Bight to pluck still recognised among Arabs.
EXCLUDED FROM THE CONGREGATION.Deu. 23:1-5
Everyone belonging to Gods people or devoted to Gods service should be as perfect as possible. Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God (Lev. 21:16-21). Five classes are mentioned as unfit to enter the congregation of the Lord.
I. Mutilated persons are excluded (Deu. 23:1). Two kinds are specified.
1. Eunuchs. An ancient practice for priests of many heathen gods, especially of the Syrian goddess, to be eunuchs, and for parents in various ways to mutilate their children and train them for the service of the great. Gods service requires soundness and purity. Sacrifices must be free from defect and blemish. Individuals in whom the Divine image was wilfully defaced were not qualified for office and association with Gods people.
2. Bastards. Such spring from an order not natural and divine. Whether heathens or strangers, often styled harlots (Isa. 23:17-18); or born before wedlock a stigma is attached to discourage disgraceful habits. These prohibitions literally and symbolically were suited for the Jewish Churchhad reference only to its outward constitution, and passed away when the kingdom of God was established.
II Special nations are excluded (Deu. 23:3). Ammon and Moab were for ever excluded.
1. They neglected duty. As allies or neighbouring states they brought no victuals into the camp, for which Israel would have paid them.
2. They were hostile in proceedings. Without provocation they opposed Israel and hired Balaam to curse them. The unmerciful will be excluded from the kingdom (Mat. 21:41-46). There can never be any peace or prosperity to enemies of God. A curse falls upon all who injure Gods people, and they will forfeit His favour for ever. Balaam had to confess, Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee (Num. 24:9).
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 23:1; Deu. 2:1. The privilege of intercourse with God and His people. Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest and causest to approach unto Thee.
2. The purity required for enjoyment of this privilege. The wrath of man is made to praise God (Psa. 36:10) All that are sinful and impure are excluded from heaven. There shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27).
Deu. 23:4. Neglect. Its guilt and danger.
Deu. 23:4-6. Benevolence towards Gods ancient people. I. The duty of benevolence is general.
1. It is a duty.
2. It is a duty absolutely indispensable to our acceptance with God. II. Our special obligation to exercise it towards Gods ancient people.
1. We are more indebted to them than to any other people under heaven.
2. The very blessings which we enjoy were taken from them that they might be transferred to us.
3. This very transfer of their blessings has been made to us for the express purpose that He might dispense them to that bereaved people in the hour of their necessity. III. The more particular obligations which we have to exercise towards them at this time. Observe
1. The interest now felt in the Christian world for their restoration to God.
2. The stir which prevails among the Jews themselves.
3. The earnests which God has given us in the actual commission of some.
4. The general voice of prophecy.
C. Simeon, M. A.
Deu. 23:6. As God takes notice of the least courtesy showed to His people, even to a cup of water, to requite it, so He doth of the least discourtesy, even to a frown or a frump, to revenge it.Trapp.
THE CURSE TURNED INTO A BLESSING.Deu. 23:5
A divine law governs events which can never be changed. God can curse the blessings of the wicked (Mal. 2:2), or turn their curse into blessings as here. Apply to other things
1. In persecution. Often overruled for the triumph of Gods people and the spread of Gods cause. The more I seek to blot out the name of Christ, the more legible it becomes; and whatever of Christ I thought to eradicate takes deeper root, and rises the higher in the hearts and lives of men.Diocletian.
2. In labour. What this would have been without sin we know not. The ground is cursed and we toil in the sweat of the face (Gen. 3:17-19.) But the curse is blessed to physical health in the vigour and development of the body, to intellectual enjoyment, in the rest and recreation of mind, to the good of society, by promoting its interests and satisfying its wants. Labour is the salt of life.
3. In affliction, which checks sin, weans from the world, brings to God, prepares and disciplines for future life. As fire refines gold, so affliction purifies men. Many can say, chastisements are blessings in disguise; it is good for me that I have been afflicted.
4. In sin. This greatest curse, which brought death into both worlds, is made the occasion of the greatest blessing. God, in his infinite wisdom, redeems from sin and death; in Jesus Christ displays His love and magnifies His grace in the salvation of the sinner. This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working.
THE EDOMITE AND THE EGYPTIAN.Deu. 23:7-8
Edomites refused permission for Israel to pass through the land, yet they were related to them by kindred, and must not be abhorred. He is thy brother. In Egypt Israel were oppressed, yet in that land they had received benefits, and descendants in the third generation of both peoples might be naturalised. Learn
I. That the tie of kindred must be respected. God has bound men in different social ties, and such ties should ever be held most sacred. If there be not a religious element in the relations of men, says Carlyle, such relations are miserable and doomed to ruin.
1. In the family. Husbands and wives, sisters and brothers must love another.
2. In the neighbourhood he must feel the claims of others. Nothing can destroy this relationship. There is a law of neighbourhood which does not leave a man perfectly master on his own ground.Burke.
3. In the country. Our native country makes its impress on our character as its accent on our tongue. We must love and pray for our country.
II. That hospitality must not be forgotten. Israel had found a home in Egypt and received many gifts in coming out. Edom was not very friendly, but they had furnished Israel with victuals in their march. For these things they must be rewarded.
1. Time must not obliterate remembrance of kindness. Years had passed, but Israel must not forget their obligation. Gratitude must prompt generosity for special favours. One good turn deserves another.
2. Circumstances must not obliterate remembrance of kindness. Israel had grown more prosperous and more powerful, but they were forbidden to revenge or pay back an old grudge. No changes of time or place must alter disposition to do right. Our ill treatment in the past must provoke to love, not to rancour, resentment and wrath. See that none render evil for evil unto any map, but ever follow that which is good.
The shade by which my life was crossed,
Which makes a desert in the mind,
Has made me kindly with my kind.
Tennyson.
THE SANCTITY OF THE CAMP.Deu. 23:9-14
Sanitary rules of great importance are given here. Simple, well adapted to the climate, and enforced by the highest motives.
I. Cleanliness must be enforced. This part of the ceremonial law was constantly enforced. In private and in public it is a religious duty; in war or in the camp special evils result from its neglect. In thy flthiness is lewdness (Eze. 24:13).
II. Wickedness must be avoided. Keep thee from every wicked thing. Theft and violence are incident to camp life. Morals and religion are often relaxed in time of war. Outward cleanliness was only symbolic of that holiness for which God was training His people. Dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
III. Purity is essential to success. To deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee (Deu. 23:14). Sin paralyses, frustrates and hinders all effort. In spiritual warfare, conquests are won by prayer and purity. Holiness is invincible when the host goeth forth against the enemy.
GODS PRESENCE AN ARGUMENT FOR MORAL PURITY.Deu. 23:12-14
If the presence of some earthly prince would put us on our guard and make us careful not to offend, how earnest should we be to put away every unclean thing when God walketh in the midst of the camp.
I. In daily life. Outwardly wash and be clean in person and habits; inwardly in heart, character and conduct. Outward cleanliness is inward purity, says the Talmud.
II. In the domestic circle. This was no mere typical cleanliness, but such as pertained to the person and dwelling of every Israelite, and which the Creators laws of health require from all classes and ranks. It is a part of the system of the God of law, order and beauty. Dirty homes are repulsive and unhealthyinjurious to morals and social life. Cleanse your persons and dwellings, else I shall never believe that you have cleansed your souls, said John Wesley.
III. In the Christian Church. God is specially in the camp of believers to work for deliverance and progress. The standard of piety must not be lowered. Every soldier must be holy and consistent, and the interests of the church constantly guarded. The Great King demands a clean camp and a purified army, that he may dwell there. Thy camp shall be holy, that He see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 23:9. Keep thee. Walk accurately, as carrying thy life in thy hand; for the sword devoureth one as well as another (2Sa. 2:25); it spares neither lord nor losel. Every soldier, therefore, should be a saint, ready pressed to meet the Lord, Who hath said, I will be sanctified in all them that draw near unto Me (Lev. 10:3).Trapp.
The soldiers bearing.
1. The nature of this injunction. The true soldier of Israel to be honourable, self-controlled, chivalrous.
2. The reason of it. That Israel might be respected for character as well as courage. That by their virtues and successes God, their Lawgiver, might be honoured.
3. The application of it. Character of soldiers of Christ. Right methods for lawful ends.Bio. Museum.
Deu. 23:13. Unclean thing. The charge to be clean.
1. From moral pollution (Deu. 23:9).
2. From ceremonial pollution.
3. From natural pollution (Deu. 23:12-14).Mt. Henry. Hereby God taught His people holy conversation, that they should keep themselves from iniquity as David did (Psa. 18:23)that is, from such sins as either by their constitution, calling, company or custom, they are most prone to.Trapp.
Deu. 23:14. Conditions of victory.
1. Purity of character.
2. The presence of God.
3. Rectitude of purpose. Then the enemy will be like the Egyptians. Let us flee from the face of Israel, for the Lord fighteth for them (Exo. 14:25).
SPECIAL LAWS.Deu. 23:15-18
Israel were to be a terror to tyrants, a refuge for afflicted people and a representative of God. They were to protect the oppressed, but to sanction no whoredom.
I. Fugitive slaves were allowed asylum. The reference is not to idolaters, but to slaves who fled from a foreign country and from harsh treatment from an unjust master.
1. They were protected from oppression. Thou shalt not deliver him unto his master. In Greece and Rome slaves were pursued by their masters, and if caught were branded with a red-hot iron. But a refugee was free, as in Britain now, the moment he sets his foot upon the soil. They were permitted to settle at pleasure. Not merely protected but encouraged to reside where it was best for him, or where he might choose. Lawless power must be checked. The interests of men must be felt when their fortunes are committed to our care.
II. Prostitutes were prohibited from their calling. Males and females were devoted to the service of Ashtaroth, visited cities, wandered as mendicants in country villages and enticed the people to abominable crimes.
1. Persons were forbidden to profess. There shall be no whore (sodomitess) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel, attachs to the worship of God and reproaches to the people of God.
2. Their sinful gains were rejected at the altar. The profits of prostitution must not be given into the treasury. They were scandalous hire, the price of a dog, an abomination to the Lord, and must not be brought into the house of the Lord. We cannot honour God with our substance unless secured by righteous means. God not only looks at what we give, but how we got it. I hate robbery for burnt-offering.
He will be found impartially severe,
Too just to wink, or speak the guilty clear.
Cowper.
CIVIL RIGHTS.Deu. 23:19-25
Here is not only a plea for liberty and a check to lewdness, but a law of usury and of vows, and a right to appease hunger.
I. A right to borrow without interest. From a stranger interest might be allowed. Commerce must be carried on and capital invested. It is a legal act, and often a mutual benefit, to borrow and pay favour for the loan. But from an Israelite no interest must be taken. Kindly feeling must be cherished. He is thy brother (Deu. 23:20.) They might lend money, seed, or food among themselves; but covetousness be checked, separation from other nations must be preserved, and God must be acknowledged. That the Lord thy God may bless thee.
II. A right of discretion in making a vow. None were compelled to vow. If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. But having made a vow, it must be faithfully performed. Thou shalt not slack to pay it. It is sacred in character, binding in force, and ought always to be made with timely caution (Num. 30:2). Better is it that thou shouldest not vow than that thou shouldest vow and not pay (Ecc. 5:5).
III. A right to refresh themselves in cornfields or vineyards. Labourers in the vintage, or travellers in the cornfield, had an interest in the fruit of the land.
1. Hunger might be appeased. Provision was thus made for the poor. Natures products are given to satisfy human wants. Jewish poor laws permitted neighbours to pluck the fruit of the proprietors fields. Thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand (Deu. 23:25).
2. Dishonesty must not be practised. The sickle must not be put into the standing corn, nor a grape carried away in a vessel. Thou mayest take for necessity, not for superfluity, says Trapp. Kindness must not be abused. We must not censure men, nor insist upon compensation for trifles. Be generous. Remember the kindness and philanthropy of God our Saviour towards man (Tit. 3:4).
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 23:17-18. Dedication of unholy gains. Many public prostitutes dedicated to their gods a part of their impure earnings, or were kept in the temple to support abominable worship. Such offerings
1. A reproach to their dignity. They were Israelites, the people of God. No such thing ought to be done in Israel.
2. An offence to their God. Holiness becomes the house of worship of God. The wages of licentiousness pollute the altar. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord (Pro. 15:8; Pro. 15:21; Pro. 15:27).
Deu. 23:19-20. Usury.
1. Lend cheerfully, without extortion or oppression.
2. Lend with a view to please God, whose favour will rest upon them in domestic, social and national life. That the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thou settest thine hand to in the land (Deu. 23:20).
Deu. 23:21-23. Vows.
1. Rule in making them. a. Voluntary. A self imposed obligation. b. Cautiously. Be not rash with thy mouth, to cause thy flesh to sin (Ecc. 5:6).
2. Rule in paying them. a. Instantly. As the best proof of sincerity. Defer not to pay it. b. Cheerfully. God loveth a cheerful giver. That which is gone out of the lips cannot be recalled, but performed solemnly, punctually, and fully.
Deu. 23:24-25. Varied Rights.
1. The rights of travellers to eat.
2. The rights of property which must not be infringed.
3. The rights of God to claim possessions and legislate for their use. The world is mine and the fulness thereof.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 23
Deu. 23:1-6. Defects. Deplorable is the degradation of our nature.South.
Trait not yourself; but, your defects to know,
Make use of every friend and every foe.
Pope.
Deu. 23:5. Curse. Human curses are ofttimes more an honour than a disgrace.Dr. Thomas.
Deu. 23:7-8. Not abhor. Let former kindnesses be remembered, and past injuries be forgotten.Wordsworth.
Wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods!
Draw near them then in being merciful:
Sweet mercy is nobilitys true badge.
Shakespeare.
Deu. 23:10-14. Clean. I have more than once expressed my convictionthat the humanizing influence of habits of cleanliness has never been sufficiently acted on. A clean, fresh, and well-ordered house exercises a moral, no less than a physical influence. Nor is it difficult to trace a connection between cleanliness and the formation of habits of respect for property, for the laws in general, and even for those higher duties and obligations the obserservance of which no laws can enforce.Dr. S. Smith.
Deu. 23:15-16. Servant. St. Baron, before his conversion to Christianity, caused one of his slaves to be severely beaten and then sold. After his conversion, he could not rest till he had induced this slave to cause his imprisonment, where he deplored constantly his crime against his human and Christian brother.ILL. Paul and Onesimus.
Deu. 23:17-18. Price. Religious profession was, at first, a conflicta sacrifice: now it is become a trade.R. Cecil.
Look to thy actions well:
For churches either are oar heaven or hell.
G. Herbert.
Deu. 23:19-20. Usury. Commerce flourishes by circumstances, precarious, contingent, transitory, almost as liable to change as the winds and waves that waft it to our shores.Cotton.
Deu. 23:21-23. Vows. When you have promised to do any good office, the right of the thing promised hath, before the God of Truth, passed over from you to another; consequently, you will esteem yourself obliged to stand to the performance of your word, though it may be to your own prejudice.Venn.
Deu. 23:24-25.A lady on her journey in India rested on her palanquin beneath the shade of some banyan trees, while her bearers kindled a fire, and her servant began his cooking preparations. Close by was a garden of gourds and other Indian vegetables, and the lady was surprised to see her servant coolly walk into this garden, gather first one kind of vegetable after another, till his hands were full, when he went to the fire and began cutting them up. His mistress called him, told him not to forget to pay for all he had taken, for the owners would come and water the plants. The man smiled and said they would not require payment. The lady tried to explain that it was stealing to take away the property of another without paying for it. He smiled again and with truthful expression replied in broken English, That no stealing, maam: that one custom in my country. Travelling this way take what we want, but no carry away. The owners of the garden soon afterwards appeared, the servant told them in his native tongue, how his mistress accused him of stealing, on which they were all amused. This had evidently been the habit of their country from time immemorial, and they had no desire to change, but were contented to do as their fathers had done before them.Biblical Treasury.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
1. EXCLUSION FROM THE CONGREGATION (Deu. 23:1-14)
(1) PERMANENT EXCLUSION FOR THE SEXUALLY MUTILATED, CHILDREN BORN OF ILLEGITIMATE UNION AND CERTAIN ENEMY PEOPLE (Deu. 23:1-6)
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.
2 A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Jehovah.
3 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Jehovah for ever; 4 because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. 5 Nevertheless Jehovah thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but Jehovah thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because Jehovah thy God loved thee. 6 Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 23:16
387.
Was the exclusion of the sexually mutilated a fair regulation? Discuss.
388.
We can see reason for the exclusion of the bastard, but why the rest of the generations?
389.
Evidently there is a time and circumstance when even God gives up. Is this a fair conclusion about what is said of the Amonite and the Moabite?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 23:16
He who is wounded in the testicles, or has been made a eunuch, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
2 A person begotten out of wedlock shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall his descendants not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
3 An Ammonite or [41]Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation their descendants shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord for ever;
[41] It must be remembered that the children, according to the Jewish law, followed the father, not the mother. [That is, the family of Boaz for example, although his wife Ruth was a Moabitess, was considered Israelite, including his wife.] The case of Ruth would not, therefore, be touched by this precept (Ellicotts Commentary).
4 Because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired Balaam son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, against you to curse you.
5 Nevertheless the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam; but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because the Lord your God loved you.
6 You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days for ever.
COMMENT 23:16
In all these verses the purity and separateness of Gods people is being maintainedand they should be studied with this in mind.
AN AMMONITE OR A MOABITE SHALL NOT ENTER (Deu. 23:3)These two peoples were related to Israel through Lot, Abrahams nephew (Gen. 19:36-38). Two reasons are given here for excluding them from the assembly:
1.
Their lack of hospitality when Israel came out of Egypt (Deu. 23:4).
2.
They hired Balaam to curse Israel (Deu. 23:4). See 2Pe. 2:12-16, Jud. 1:11.
Moabs actions toward Israel are recorded in Numbers 22-25. Their influence upon the Hebrews was in every way degrading. Ammons treatment was apparently similartheir border was strong (Num. 21:24), Israel was to avoid conflict with them when entering Canaan (Deu. 2:19) and they evidently joined Moab in the hiring of Balaam. Both of these tribes were later thorns in Israels flesh, Jdg. 3:12-13; Jdg. 11:4, etc.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) The rule that a eunuch should not enter into the congregation was doubtless intended to prevent the Israelitish rulers from making eunuchs of their brethren the children of Israel. As a set off to this apparent harshness towards the man who had been thus treated, we must read Isa. 56:3-4, in which a special promise is given to the eunuchs that keep Gods Sabbaths and take hold of His covenant. God will give to them within His house and within His walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughtersan everlasting name that shall not be cut off. As a special calamity it was foretold to Hezekiah that some of his descendants should be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon. But Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in whom this prophecy was fulfilled, have ennobled the children that are of their sort for evermore.
We have no means of knowing whether the eunuchs that were in the service of the kings of Israel or Judah (1Sa. 8:15; 1Ki. 22:9; 2Ki. 8:6; 2Ki. 9:32, &c.) were Israelites by birth or not. Ebedmelech, the Ethiopian, who received a special blessing from Jeremiah (Jer. 39:15-18), was a foreigner, and so very possibly were most, if not all, of his kind in Israel.
As to the second clause of this verse, it must be remembered that circumcision was the sign of the covenant of Jehovah; mutilation a form of heathen self-devotion. (See Gal. 5, 12, Revised New Testament, Margin, and Bishop Lightfoots comment on that place.) St. Pauls words in Galatians receive a double meaning from this law. By doing what he refers to, they would cut themselves off from the congregation of the Lord. Rashi also gives another meaning, which would connect the precept with Lev. 15:2.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
PERSONS WHO ARE NOT TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE CONGREGATION, Deu 23:1-8.
1. Cut off No doubt Moses aimed to keep the people of God free from those pernicious customs so prevalent among the Eastern nations. At an early date eunuchs were employed at the courts of the Egyptian and Assyrian kings. On the exclusion of these classes from the priesthood compare Lev 21:17-24.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Chapter 23 Regulation Concerning Those Whom Yahweh Makes Welcome and Unwelcome (1-18): Regulations Concerning Honest Dealings (19-25).
Moses now came to the question as to whom in the future were to be welcome to become true Israelites with full rights in the community and who would not, and them went on to deal with the question of honest dealings.
Exclusion From And Entry Into The Assembly Of Yahweh ( Deu 23:1-8 ).
Having dealt with different aspects of concern for one another within the covenant details were now given of those who for various reasons were welcome or unwelcome within the full covenant. First Moses considered those who were seen as restricted from becoming full citizens by being enrolled in the assembly of Yahweh. This did not exclude them from a covenant relationship with Yahweh, for they could still worship and pray and offer sacrifices (see Num 15:14-16; Num 15:26 compare Lev 16:29; Lev 17:8; Lev 22:18). But they could not be seen as full members.
Behind this lies the fact that it was considered to be a great privilege to be a member of the assembly of Yahweh. The ‘congregation of Yahweh’ were regarded as ‘holy, every one of them’ (Num 16:3). They were seen as ‘set apart’ as Yahweh’s. They were ‘a holy nation, a kingdom of priests’ (Exo 19:6). Theirs was a unique privilege and they had to be seen to be a holy nation, at least outwardly. Even then those who were under twenty years of age were not seen as full members of the congregation. See Num 1:18; Num 26:2; Jos 22:12; Jdg 20:1 but compare 2Ch 31:16; 2Ch 31:18 where they were in some way accepted as connected with the congregation if they were over three years of age. In its pure form the congregation also probably excluded women as well for they could not be circumcised. See Num 1:2-3; Num 1:18 where ‘the congregation’ appears to refer to the men only. See also Jos 22:12; Jdg 20:1; Jdg 21:5; Ezr 2:64. But again see 2Ch 31:16 ; 2Ch 31:18.
Certainly their women’s later position is blatantly brought out in that in Herod’s temple women were excluded from ‘the court of Israel’. On the other hand they did have a special position of their own. They had the Court of the Women and were not limited to the court of the Gentiles.
So membership in the assembly of Yahweh was not granted easily to those not born within the covenant. It should be noted that the exemptions now mentioned evidence further that we are dealing with words of Moses. The exemptions were probably intended to cover all known likely applicants, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites and Egyptians, all described previously in the book as having current contact with Israel. It is quite likely that approaches were being made at this time by Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites who wanted to join up with Israel. This indicates the early date of this passage. The favourable view of Edom also indicates an early date. In contrast the prophets later castigated Edom which was then seen as a mortal enemy. Canaanites are excluded because the purpose is that they will not be alive to become members. Any others are ignored. They have not come within Israel’s purview. The non-mention of the class of other resident aliens and foreigners generally, often mentioned elsewhere, was probably an indication that they might be accepted on individual terms in terms of Exo 12:48-49. They could never present the threat that neighbours could (see what follows).
The first part of the chapter deals with the purity of the assembly, and who was and who was not to be welcomed (Deu 23:1-8), the purity of the military camp and behaviour that was not welcomed (Deu 23:9-14), the welcoming of an escaped slave (Deu 23:15-16 – probably because Israel themselves had been escaped slaves from Egypt), and in contrast the non-welcome of prostitutes and practising homosexuals (Deu 23:17-18). In each case the question is of who can be Yahweh’s chosen ones. This is then followed by covenant matters such as not taking from the poor interest on loans (Deu 23:19-20), not taking from God was has been avowed to Him (Deu 23:21-23), and not taking from their neighbours what belongs to them. There was the presumption in the first case that the poor would have loans available to them, in the second that freewill offerings would be available for others to partake of, and in the third of the availability to all of ready meals from growing grapes and grain (Deu 23:24-25). The three are thus closely connected by the thought of honesty and provision.
The chapter uses ‘thou, thee’ throughout apart from Deu 23:4 a where the thought is of them as a multitude of people.
Regulations Concerning Who Can Enter the Assembly of Yahweh ( Deu 23:1-9 ).
Analysis using the words of Moses:
a He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh (Deu 23:1).
b A foreigner of doubtful background (mamzer) shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh (Deu 23:2).
c An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Yahweh for ever (Deu 23:3).
d Because they did not meet you with bread and with water in the way, when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you (Deu 23:4).
d Nevertheless Yahweh your God would not listen to Balaam, but Yahweh your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because Yahweh your God loves you (Deu 23:5).
c You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days for ever (Deu 23:6).
b You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land (Deu 23:7).
a The children of the third generation who are born to them shall enter into the assembly of Yahweh (Deu 23:8).
Note that in ‘a’ one who has been emasculated cannot enter the assembly of Yahweh, but in the parallel an Edomite or Egyptian of the third generation can enter he assembly of Yahweh. In ‘b’ a foreigner of doubtful background shall not enter the assembly of Yahweh, but in the parallel Edom and Egypt are not to be looked on as foreigners of doubtful background. In ‘c’ the Ammonite and Moabite cannot enter the assembly of Yahweh ‘for ever’, and in the parallel they are seen as so untrustworthy that no treaties must be made with them ‘for ever’. In ‘d’ they hired Balaam against Israel, and in the parallel Yahweh did not listen to Balaam.
The Mutilated Cannot Enter the Assembly of Yahweh ( Deu 23:1 ).
As entry into the land became nearer it was important to guard against the practises of the land. There might be a temptation for Israelites to mutilate themselves as they learned what the Canaanite cult prostitutes had done, or were still doing, in unoccupied territory. Let them therefore recognise that to do that would be for them to ever disqualify them from being in the assembly of Israel. There would be no way back for they would be permanently blemished. For no one religiously mutilated could enter the assembly of Yahweh.
Deu 23:1
‘ He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
This in a curious way connects back to Deu 22:30 which spoke of ‘uncovering his father’s skirt’. Here a man’s private parts were ‘uncovered’. This probably indicates deliberate mutilation, and is possibly intended to contemptuously dismiss the whole of Canaan as religious rejects, with the mutilated person seen as representing Canaanite religion and its adherents. These descriptions could well have been basically representing Canaanite religious rites which were an abomination to Yahweh and were seen as representative of Canaanite religion, which included the castration of male religious prostitutes. There would thus be total exclusion for Canaanites from the assembly of Israel, consonant with the fact that they were to be destroyed. (Even then Rahab was welcomed in – Jos 6:25. God’s grace always has its exceptions).
But as mentioned above any copycat tactics by Israelites would have the same effect for them as well. Such practises would exclude anyone from the assembly of Yahweh. They were making themselves into Canaanites.
Those mentioned here would necessarily be prevented from circumcision because of their previous past ritual act which was also thus seen as excluding them for ever. In the case of the Canaanites it was because they bore on them the permanent mark of some other deity. In the case of the Israelite it might indicate excessive but mistaken religious fervour. But that would not excuse them. Yahweh demanded wholesomeness and perfection, not mutilation (compare Deu 14:1). To so mutilate themselves would exclude them from the assembly. We do not know whether exclusion of eunuchs was intended here, or not. Eunuchs would later be perfectly acceptable (Isa 56:3-4). It probably does not refer to men mutilated by accident.
There is no mention of the exclusion of their descendants because speaking literally they would be unable to father children. But the intention was also in the case of the Canaanites that there would be no descendants. Any descendants of non-Canaanites to whom this referred would not, however, themselves necessarily be mutilated.
Some, however, see the significance of this as referring to the non-functioning of a man’s lifegiving potential. Thus the point would be that the man could no longer ‘go forth and multiply’. He was therefore seen as blemished and not ‘fitted’ to be a part of the assembly of Israel, the holy people, although it would not necessarily prevent him from being within the covenant and able to worship Yahweh. But he would not be able to be an acting priest. It was in that view a ritual matter rather than a personal one indicating the perfection of Yahweh as the source of life.
The ‘assembly of Yahweh’ was Israel as gathered at the central Sanctuary with the main emphasis on the adult males (compare Deu 4:10; Deu 5:22; Deu 9:10; Deu 10:4; Deu 18:16). These basically constituted ‘Israel’ with their households coming under their ‘umbrella’. It would exclude resident aliens who had not fully submitted to the covenant (those who had submitted would be seen as full members – compare the principle in Exo 12:48). To enter into the assembly of Yahweh indicated obtaining full, unrestricted membership, with all its rights and privileges.
Deu 23:2
‘ A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
It is an open question what was meant by ‘a bastard’ (mamzer). The English translation give the impression of clarity but not the Hebrew (to us). The word is only used twice in the Old Testament and in its other use refers to ‘a mongrel people’ dwelling in Ashdod having replaced the true people (Zec 9:6). It could therefore mean a ‘foreigner’ but in a contemptuous sense, a foreigner of doubtful background. Notice how in the analysis it contrasts with Edomites and Egyptians, the former ‘brothers’ and the latter those who welcomed them as resident aliens.
It has been seen as referring to the product of an incestuous relationship (compare Deu 22:30) or the product of a forbidden marriage (compare Deu 7:3) or a half-breed, especially if connected with those otherwise forbidden (for racism was otherwise unknown), or the children of cult prostitutes (by relating mamzer to manzer which means ‘consecrated’). Theoretically at least a bastard as we know it could rarely be born in Israel for adulterers were put to death, and those who engaged in sex outside marriage were compulsorily married. Thus true bastards would be rare. It is not possible for us to be certain who was really in mind.
The exclusion ‘to the tenth generation’ puts them on a parallel with Ammonites and Moabites and excludes their descendants from full membership in Israel in the foreseeable future. The phrase could indicate ‘many generations’ as something thrust into the distant future, or it may mean ‘for ever’ (Deu 23:3).
Deu 23:3-5
‘ An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Yahweh for ever, because they did not meet you (ye) with bread and with water in the way, when you (ye) came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you (thee) Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you (thee). Nevertheless Yahweh your God would not listen to Balaam, but Yahweh your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because Yahweh your God loves you.’
The exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites was on the basis of their unsuitability as evidenced by their actions. Ammonites were included with Moabites because they were brother nations and often acted as one (compare Jdg 3:12-13; Jdg 11:12-28 especially 17, 18, 25). What one did the other did. Thus they were lumped together as hiring Balaam, even though in Numbers no mention is made of the Ammonites. But they had continually demonstrated their enmity towards Israel by their attitude. They had refused hospitality to a refugee nation who were related to them, in the time of need, they had hired a false prophet against them, and they had sought for them to be cursed. They were thus untrustworthy. Even from a practical point of view they were not the kind of people that should be introduced into the inner counsels of Israel.
The reasons mentioned must not be minimised. To refuse hospitality was repugnant in the Ancient Near East. It was to brand someone as an enemy or an outcast. This thus demonstrated deep enmity. The hiring of Balaam was an even deeper display of enmity. The purpose had been to put Israel under a permanent curse. They wanted to be rid of them for ever. It was only due to Yahweh’s love for Israel that that curse was turned into a blessing.
The idea is that this demonstrated that they were so untrustworthy that while individuals might be allowed within the covenant and to worship Yahweh, none could ever in the foreseeable future become full members of the assembly. For they would never be able to show themselves as sufficiently detached from the attitude of their nations. Part of their disqualification might also arise from the fact that they were seen as descended from an incestuous union of Lot with his daughters (Gen 19:30-38), so that they were seen as permanently blemished. The contrast with Edom as ‘your brother’ may hint at this. It should, however, be noted that their womenfolk could be absorbed into Israel on marriage to an Israelite, as witness Ruth the ancestress of David (Rth 4:21-22) whose children were welcomed into the assembly of Israel.
“Even to the tenth generation — for ever.” ‘Ten’ regularly means ‘many’ (compare Gen 31:7). Thus this may mean for the foreseeable future until some great event occurs that makes it possible, possibly the coming of Shiloh? – see Gen 49:10. ‘For ever’ means a similar thing, ‘unto the ages’, that is into the distant future. Moab and Ammon were clearly seen as a deceitful and wild people and totally untrustworthy.
Deu 23:6
‘ You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days for ever.’
This is not as harsh as it sounds. Its meaning is that they are not to establish peace treaties with either nation. To ‘seek their peace and prosperity’ was a traditional way by which entering into such treaties was described. The ban was signifying that there was something so unstable in the characters of the nations that they were never to be trusted in a treaty. Their curse returned on their own heads. This would confirm that the problem therefore lay in their basic attitude.
Deu 23:7
‘ You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.’
In contrast were the Edomites and the Egyptians, the former because they were a genuine brother nation, the latter because in contrast with the Moabites and the Ammonites they had welcomed Israel to live among them at their time of need. Thus whenever they wished to enter the assembly of Israel this was possible after completing a probationary period which established their genuineness.
“Shall not abhor.” Abhorrence had in mind what was contrary to God. It was the opposite of ‘covenant love’. They were not to be looked on as of such a nature that they were utterly unable to be received by Yahweh. Later this position would be partly reversed in the case of Edom because they would criminally take advantage of Judah’s misfortunes (Obadiah; Amo 1:11-12; Eze 35:5; 2Ch 28:17; Psa 137:7). They took possession of lands in the south. It rebounded on them, for in the end these were joined by refugees from the destruction of Edom and were later (under John Hyrcanus) actually forced then to be circumcised and become Jews at the point of the sword, being gradually absorbed into God’s people.
The prophets would later prophesy that one day large numbers of Egyptians would turn to Yahweh (Isa 19:18-25; Isa 45:14), something which became a reality through the preaching of the early church so that Alexandria became a major centre of Christianity in its early days.
Deu 23:8
‘ The children of the third generation who are born to them shall enter into the assembly of Yahweh.’
Thus when it came to Edomites and Egyptians the father and his son would be probationers, but the grandson would receive welcome as a full member, so the wait would not be too long. It may be asked why they had to be put on probation, whereas other resident aliens could be welcomed almost immediately. The answer lies in the circumstances. Being neighbours they could seek to ‘convert’ in large numbers, and by this means plant spies in the assembly in readiness for a coup. This was hopefully to be prevented by the period of probation during which the genuineness of their motives could be proved. And while the son might follow his father in such a plan, the grandson, brought up as an Israelite, would see himself as such.
Behind these stipulations lies an important lesson. It is that while we must forgive people, and always welcome them, we must ever be sensibly aware of their frailties. The Christian ‘forgets’ in that he never again holds a repented of sin against someone, but he is still wise enough to recognise other people’s basic failings.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Deu 23:5 Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee.
Deu 23:5
Ezr 6:11-12, “Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this. And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed.”
Deu 23:10 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp:
Deu 23:10
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Deu 23:18
Deu 23:18 Comments When associating Deu 23:18 to Mat 27:6, as many scholars do, the meaning of this verse can be generalized to mean that the Law prohibited offers given from money that was gained by ungodly methods.
Mat 27:6, “And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.”
Deu 23:25 When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.
Deu 23:25
Mat 12:1, “At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.” (Also, parallel passages in Mar 2:23 and Luk 6:1)
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Some Rules Concerning Membership
v. 1. He that is wounded in the stones, v. 2. A bastard, v. 3. An Ammonite or Moabite, v. 4. because they met you not with bread and time water in the way when ye came forth out of Egypt, v. 5. Nevertheless the Lord, thy God, would not hearken unto Balaam, v. 6. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity, v. 7. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother, v. 8. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
CIVIL RIGHTS. WHO MAY AND WHO MAY NOT ENTER INTO THE CONGREGATION. UNCLEANNESS IN THE CAMP TO BE AVOIDED. RECEPTION OF FUGITIVE SLAVES. LICENTIOUS PERSONS TO BE REMOVED, AND GIFTS THE PRICE OF IMPURITY TO BE REFUSED. LAWS REGARDING USURY, VOWS, AND CERTAIN DUTIES OF CITIZENSHIP.
Deu 23:1-8
Five classes of persons are here excluded from the congregation of the Lord.
Deu 23:1
Mutilation was performed by the two methods here specifiedcrushing and excision. The exclusion of persons who had suffered this from the congregation, i.e. from the covenant fellowship of Israel, the (Eph 2:12), was due to the priestly character of the nation. Israel was a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6), and the admission into it of one in whom the nature of man, as made by God, had been degraded and marred, would have been unfitting; just as all bodily blemish unfitted a man for being a priest, though otherwise qualified (Le Deu 21:16 -24). This law, however, was one of the ordinances intended for the period of nonage; it had reference to the outward typical aspect of the Israelitish constitution; and it ceased to have any significance when the spiritual kingdom of God came to be established. Even under the theocracy, eunuchs were not excluded from religious privileges; they could keep God’s Sabbaths, and take hold of his covenant, and choose the things pleasing to him, and so be part of the spiritual Israel, though shut out from the fellowship of that which was outward and national (cf. Isa 56:4).
Deu 23:2
A bastard; one born of a harlot; so the Hebrew word (), which occurs only here and in Zec 9:6, is said to mean; LXX; : Vulgate, de scorto natus; the Talmud and the rabbins represent the word as denoting one begotten in adultery or incest (Maimon; ‘Issure Biah.,’ c. 15. 1, 2, 7, 9); so also the Syriac bar gamo, “son of adultery.” To his tenth generation; i.e. forever, ten being the number of indefiniteness (cf. Gen 31:7; Num 14:22; Job 19:3; Psa 3:6, etc.).
Deu 23:3
As Ammon and Moab had met the Israelites with hostility, and had brought Balaam to curse them, a curse had thereby been brought upon themselves, and they also were to be forever excluded from the congregation of Israel.
Deu 23:6
Israel was not to seek, i.e. care for and use means to promote, the welfare of these nations. Individuals, however, of these nations might be naturalized in Israel, and as proselytes enter the congregation, as the case of Ruth proves. It was against the nations, as such, that this ban was directed, and this they had brought on themselves by choosing to be enemies of Israel when they might have been friends and allies.
Deu 23:7
It was to be otherwise with the Edomite and the Egyptian; though the former had refused permission to the Israelites to pass through their land, and the latter had oppressed and wronged the nation, yet as the former were connected with Israel by a bond of kindredfor he is thy brotherand the latter had received Israel to sojourn in their land, where, notwithstanding the oppression which clouded the later times of their sojourn, they had reaped many benefits, they were not to abhor these nations or place them under a ban of perpetual exclusion; descendants in the third generation of an Edomite or Egyptian might be naturalized in Israel.
Deu 23:9-11When the people went forth to war, all impurity and defilement was to be kept out of their camp. When the host goeth forth; literally, when thou goest forth as a camp or host. As in the wilderness the camp was to be kept pure (Num 5:2, etc.), so also in the future, when they went out to war, all defilement was to be removed from their host. Every wicked thing; rather, every evil thing, evil in the sense of blemish or uncleanness (cf. Deu 17:1).
Deu 23:13
A paddle upon thy weapon; rather, a small spade (the word properly means a pin or nail) among thy furniture, or, according to another reading among thy implements or accoutrements; they were to carry with them along with their implements of war a tool for digging in the earth.
Deu 23:14
The camp was to be kept holy, because God went forth with their armies, and in his presence there must be nothing that defileth or is unclean. That he see no unclean thing in thee; literally, nakedness, shamefulness of a thing, i.e. anything that one would be ashamed of.
Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16
A slave that had escaped from his master was not to be given up, but allowed to dwell in the land, in whatever part he might choose. The reference is to a foreign slave who had fled from the harsh treatment of his master to seek refuge in Israel, as is evident from the expression, , “in one of thy gates,” i.e. in any part of thy land. Onkelos, , “a slave of the Gentiles.” His master; the word used is the plural adonim, masters. The use of this for a human master or lord is peculiar to the Pentateuch (cf. Gen 24:9, Gen 24:51; Gen 39:2; Gen 40:1; Exo 21:4, Exo 21:6, Exo 21:32, etc.). In this use of the term there is no reference to severity of rule, as if this were a plural intensive.
Deu 23:17, Deu 23:18
Amongst idolatrous nations prostitution was in certain cases regarded as an act of religious service (cf. Herod, 1:199), and both mules and females prostituted themselves especially in the worship of Astarte. All such abominations were to be unknown in Israel (cf. Mic 1:7). Whore; kedeshah (), a female who prostituted herself in the worship of an idol. The price of a dog; not money obtained from the sale of a dog, but the gains of the kadesh, or male prostitute, here called a dog, as the type of all uncleanness (cf. Rev 22:15).
Deu 23:19-25
Certain civil rights and duties are here prescribed.
Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20
An Israelite might lend on interest money, or victuals, or other property, to a foreigner, but of one of his own people he was not to take interest for a loan (cf. Exo 22:24; Le Exo 25:36, Exo 25:37).
Deu 23:21-23
A vow to the Lord, once made, was to be religiously kept; the Lord would require it, and to refuse or neglect to pay it would be held a sin. No one, however, was under any obligation to vowthat was to be a purely voluntary act. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God of free-will (, spontaneously). (For the law concerning vows in general, see Lev 27:1-34, and Num 30:1-16.)
Deu 23:24, Deu 23:25
In the vineyard or cornfield of a neighbor they might eat to appease hunger, but no store of grapes or of grain might be carried away. At thine own pleasure; literally, according to thy soul, i.e. desire or appetite (cf. Deu 14:26). Pluck the ears with thine hand (cf. Mat 12:1; Luk 6:1). Among the Arabs of the present day the right of a hungry person to pluck ears of corn in a field and eat the grains is still recognized (Robinson, ‘Bib. Res.,’ 2:192; Thomson, ‘Land and the Book,’ 2:510).
HOMILETICS
Deu 23:1-8
Stern safeguards sometimes needed.
It was no small part of the education of the Hebrew people at once to stamp as disreputable the practices of bodily mutilation which were common enough among heathen nations. The honor of the congregation of the Lord was bound up in its freedom from complicity therewith. Eunuchs and illegitimate offspring were excluded from the congregation of the Lord, lest the moral virus connected with the associations of their life should be as poison in the camp. Hence this shield against its poisonous influence is to be preserved down “to the tenth generation,” both as a brand on former sin and as a guard against future evil. Sentence of exclusion is also passed on the Ammonites and Moabites (see Gen 19:36-38). The stain on the origin of these races is grievous. And the new generations had, by their hostility to the people of God, and because of their superstitious arts, shown that naught but peril could attend their admission, for a long time to come. To seek “their peace and prosperity” would have been an increase of peril, as well as a connivance at wrong. Hence it was forbidden (Deu 23:6). That this, and not the cultivation of needless hostility or revenge, was intended by these prohibitions is clear from Deu 23:7, Deu 23:8. Two extremes are to be avoided. No rancor or grudge is to be cherished over past ills inflicted, and yet kindliness of feeling is not to be allowed to degenerate into even apparent friendship with ungodliness and sin. In these facts and precepts the following teachings are included or suggested.
I. The perfection of social life can only be secured when the several members of any society are holy unto the Lord.
II. The outside world presents very much that is the reverse of this, even all kinds of spiritual and sensual wickedness.
III. While it behooves us to cherish a spirit of true benevolence towards all, yet we may never wink at sin.
IV. It may be necessary for us to adopt stern measures towards ethers, even that of banishment (1Co 5:6, 1Co 5:13), in order to avoid contamination.
V. We may well cherish, and teach others to cherish, a special hatred of sins of the flesh, since it may not be for many, many generations that blood-poisoning thereby ceases to corrupt or taint the life. Surely men would more frequently check themselves in sin if they would remember for how long they may enfeeble the constitutions and embitter the lives of those who may hereafter owe their existence to them.
Deu 23:9-14
Cleanliness a religious duty.
The Law of Moses may be regarded as fourfoldmoral, ritual, civil, and sanitary. The precepts in this paragraph are an example of the last-named part thereof. They refer to the inculcation of cleanliness, both in camp and in person. And not only so, but to the observance thereof in time of war. While, perhaps, at such times special evils would result from the neglect of such regulations, yet, on the other hand, it would be precisely when movements were irregular, uncertain, and attended with much excitement, that there would be the strongest tendency to fail in their observance. But no amount of war-pressure would be any excuse for uncleanliness. We get here, moreover, an illustration of that which so often occurs in the Law of Moses, viz. that duties of the lowest, humblest, and most common order are urged on the people by the highest and noblest sanctions; and many a teacher may find reason for urging to cleanliness of habit from such a text as Deu 23:14, “The Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp therefore shall thy camp be holy.” The precise application of the text must, of course, vary with locality and circumstance; but the principle of it includes the following.
1. The presence of the Lord God is everywhere.
2. He is in the “camp” of his people as a special light and guard.
3. Hence every such home may be regarded as a temple of God, the palace of the Great King.
4. In such homes the most menial acts may be acts of service done for God; common work may be dignified by great motives.
5. It will be regarded by a wise Christian man as a part of his duty which is by no means to be neglected, to maintain order and unsullied cleanliness in person and home. This will be part of his life-worshipthe living translation of “laborare est orare.” This duty needs special enforcement in some quarters. Many a humble Christian cottager elevates his home and all therein, by having it so beautifully clean that, on every piece of furniture, on every wall, on every floor, it seems as if the words were graven, “Holiness to the Lord.”
Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16
Israel’s land a refuge for the oppressed.
(For “the Mosaic treatment of slavery, see Homily on Deu 15:12-18.) To the features of his legislation thereon this must be added that, as soon as ever a foreign slave set foot on Hebrew soil, he was free. Israel’s land was for him the land of liberty!
Deu 23:17, Deu 23:18
Unholy wealth may not be put to Divine uses.
(See Homilies on Deu 15:1-6; Deu 14:22-29.) The same law which regulates the appropriation of wealth rightfully gained forbids me dedication to any holy use of wealth sinfully gained.
Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20
The opposite working of like principles.
The difference here permitted between lending to brethren and to strangers resembles that allowed in Deu 15:1-6 (see Homily thereon).
Deu 23:21-23
Vows to God to be performed.
The vow here made is supposed to be entirely voluntary. It was “a free-will offering.” In Num 30:3-8, abuse is guarded against. Yews made without the knowledge or consent of the father or husband were to be of no force. No priest had any warrant from the Mosaic institutes to come between a young woman and her father, or between husband and wife. Vows to God were to he completely spontaneous, as between the soul and God. They were not to he extorted by others, nor yet to involve the entanglement of others.
Deu 23:24, Deu 23:25
Kindliness to neighbors a duty of the holders of property.
This is a very instructive precept. “In vine-growing countries grapes are amazingly cheap; and we need not wonder, therefore, that all within the reach of a passenger’s arm were free. The quantity plucked was a loss never felt by the proprietor, and it was a kindly privilege afforded to the poor and wayfaring man” (Jameson). “Thou mayest take for necessity, not for superfluity” (Trapp).
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Deu 23:1-8
The excluded from the congregation.
Certain principles underlie these exclusions which it is worth our while to note. It will be seen that, though bars of this kind are done away in Christ, there was a fitness, under the theocracy, in the exclusion of the classes specified from full participation in covenant privilege, such exclusion being in harmony with the idea of “a holy nation”type in earthly mold of the ideal kingdom of God.
I. THE EXCLUSION OF THE MUTILATED. (Deu 23:1.) The idea here is that the preservation of the body in its vigor, and in the entirety of its functions, is a duty which we owe to God; that mutilation of it or dishonor done to it is dishonor done to hima species of profanity. Those in whom this work of dishonor had been wrought, unfitting them for the discharge of the distinctive functions of their manhood, were barred from entrance to the congregation. The ban is removed under the gospel (Isa 56:3-5).
II. THE EXCLUSION OF THE CHILDREN OF INCEST. (Deu 23:2, Deu 23:3.) “To the tenth generation” seems to be a periphrasis for “forever” (Neh 13:1). The rabbins take the term “bastard” to refer to children born of incest or adultery. These were to be excluded through all their generations. This principle, irrespective of the ground stated in Deu 23:4, would have sufficed to exclude Moab and Ammon. The truth conveyed is that the impure are unalterably debarred from membership in God’s kingdom. God’s kingdom is a kingdom of purity. In its final form nothing of an impure nature will be found in it. Impurity of heart and life exclude from inward membership in it now, and will do so forever. Known impurity should exclude from Church fellowship on earth (1Co 5:1, 1Co 5:2). The outward bar no longer exists, and the offspring of impure connection, if children of faith, are welcomed to the spiritual fold. But the tendency of sins of parents still is, as of old, to exclude children from the fellowship of believers. The unchurched little ones grow up outside the pale of ordinances, and tend, in course of generations, to become increasingly estranged from the means of grace. Parents who sin themselves out of Church fellowship thus do their children, as well as their own souls, an irreparable injury.
III. THE EXCLUSION OF THE UNMERCIFUL AND OF THOSE WHO SHOWED HATRED TO GOD‘S PEOPLE. (Deu 23:4-6.) The principle here is obvious. Christ expressly excludes the unmerciful from all participation in his kingdom (Mat 25:41-46). And there can be no “peace” and no “prosperity” to those who are actuated by hostility to God’s kingdom. So long as they retain this character, we cannot wish it for them. Hostility to Christ’s people is hostility to Christ himself (Act 9:4, Act 9:5), and reacts fatally on the soul (Mat 21:44). It draws upon it God s indignation, and ends in final exclusion from heaven.
IV. THE ADMISSION OF THOSE WHO SHOW KINDNESS TO GOD‘S PEOPLE. (Deu 23:7, Deu 23:8.) The Edomite and the Egyptian were not to be abhorred; their children might be admitted in the third generation. The Edomites had not been as friendly as they might have been, but they had at least furnished the Israelites with victuals in their march, while the Egyptians had for a long time shown them kindness and hospitality. For these things they “had their reward.” Acts of kindness to God’s people do not entitle to admission into God’s kingdom, but they show a “nighness” of spirit to it, and are remembered in God’s dealings with the doers of them, and may issue in their final salvation (Mat 10:42). Note: Past kindnesses are not to be forgotten because of a late change of disposition. The Egyptians were kindly remembered, though their treatment of the Israelites had latterly been very cruel. It is to be remarked also that the tone in which Edom is uniformly referred to in this book does not in the least harmonize with the late date assigned to it by many critics. Edom, in the time of the prophets, had become Israel’s implacable foe.J.O.
Deu 23:5
The curse turned into a blessing.
No enchantment, no curse of evil men, can prevail against the people of God. Contrariwise, God will turn the curse into a Messing. In Malachi, on the other hand, he threatens to “curse the blessings” of the wicked (Mal 2:2). How does God turn the curse into a blessing?
1. Directly, by substituting a blessing for a curse. The curse is not merely not allowed to take effect for harm, but God puts a blessing in its stead. A Divine law of compensation comes into operation. The wicked is punished, and the object of his unrighteous hatred consoled and rewarded, by the curse being read backward, and made a reason for conferring blessing. The very curses of the wicked are thus a means of enrichment to the good. Balaam’s curses were thus changed into blessings (Num 23:1-30; Num 24:1-25.).
2. Providentially, by overruling the designs of evil men for their own confusion, and for his people‘s good. We have examples in the histories of Joseph (Gen 1:20), of Mordecai and the Jews (Esther 6-10.), of Daniel (Dan 6:1-28.). The persecutions of the Church have thus been overruled for the extension of the gospel (Act 11:19). The highest example is the crucifixion of Christ (Act 3:13-19).
3. Spiritually, by turning outward afflictions into means of spiritual good.
(1) Afflictions humble, chasten, purify (Job 42:4, Job 42:5; Psa 119:71).
(2) God can turn afflictions into sources of comfort and. joy, into occasions of higher glory to himself, into means of salvation and glory to the saint (Act 16:25; Rom 5:3; 2Co 12:9, 2Co 12:10; 2Co 4:17; Php 1:19).
(3) God can overrule even punishment of sin for our ultimate good. Levi (Gen 49:7).J.O.
Deu 23:9-14
Purity in the camp.
The camp was to be free from:
1. Moral pollution (Deu 23:9).
2. Ceremonial pollution (verses10, 11).
3. Natural pollution (Deu 23:12, Deu 23:13)M. Henry.
This, because God was in its midst. He was there to work for their deliverance and for the confusion of their enemies. We are taught
I. THAT MILITARY LIFE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LAXITY IN MORALS, OR FOR A LOWERED STANDARD OF PROPRIETY IN CONDUCT. The opposite opinion too commonly prevails. Immoralities are winked at in soldiers and sailors which would not be tolerated in ordinary society; nay, are sometimes half justified as a necessity of their situation. When public opinion is in this easy state, we cannot wonder that the individuals themselves are not very strict about their behavior. They find Acts passed, e.g. to protect them in their evil courses, and they naturally suppose that they have a kind of sanction for their immorality. Officers do not always set the men the best example. This is in every sense to be deplored. Immorality does not change its nature in the barrack-room or on the march. Rather, when “the host goes forth’ we should try to put away from us “every wicked thing.” Only then can we confidently expect God’s presence to go with us, or look to him for aid in battle. Compare Carlyle’s account of Cromwell’s army (‘Cromwell,’ vol. 2; at end), and the “prayer-meeting” of the leaders. See also Baillie’s account of the encampment of the Scotch Covenanters at Dunse Law (‘Letters,’ 1:211).
II. THAT PURITY IS REQUIRED IN THE CAMP OF THE CHURCH, IF HER WARFARE IS TO BE SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED. In spiritual conflicts, above all, we must look to spiritual conditions. The Church is an army of Christ. She is organized for aggressive and defensive warfare. Her only hope of success lies in the presence of the Lord with her. But can she hope for this presence if she is not careful to maintain her internal purity? True, she has no commission to search the heart, and must be content to allow tares to mingle with the wheat (Mat 13:24-31). But it is within her province, in the exercise of discipline, to remove obvious scandals, and by rebuke and censure, as well as by positive teaching and persuasion, to keep down worldliness, irreligion, and sensuality, when these make their appearance m her midst. She ought to pray, labor, and use her authority for the maintenance of her purity. The purer she is internally the more resistless will she be in her assaults on evil without.J.O.
Deu 23:15-23
Various precepts
No very close connection exists between the precepts in these verses, yet they are variously related, and suggest by their juxtaposition lessons of importance. We have
I. A WORD SPOKEN IN THE INTERESTS OF LIBERTY. (Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16.)
1. The fugitive slave is not to be given back to his master. The case is that of a slave escaping from a heathen master. The spirit of the Mosaic Law is wholly opposed to slavery. This precept anticipates our own law, that a slave setting foot on British territory is free.
2. Every encouragement is to be given him to settle in the land. He is not to be oppressed or treated with unkindness, but is to be allowed to settle where he pleases. The holy land was thus a true asylum for the oppressed.
II. A BLOW STRUCK AT LEWDNESS. (Deu 23:17, Deu 23:18.) The lawgiver alone, so far as we know, among ancient nations, lays his axe at the root of this great evil. He refuses to it the least toleration. He is right. The prevalence of lewdness in a land blights and withers everything good. It saps the manhood of the nation, destroys its love of liberty (2Pe 2:19), turns religion to hypocrisy (Mat 23:25-29), kills humane feeling, dissolves domestic ties, and degrades the wretched victim of it to the lowest point of brutishness
“It hardens a’ within,
And petrifies the feeling!”
Burns.
The contrast between the noble severity of the Bible teaching on this subject, and the wretchedly low tone of the teaching of such writers as Bolingbroke, or even of Hume, is very noteworthy.
III. CHECKS IMPOSED ON COVETOUSNESS.
1. The lender is not permitted to exact usury from his brother (Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20). That the taking of interest was not regarded as in itself sinful is plain from the permission to take usury from a stranger. But in the circumstances of the time, and in view of the design of the lawgiver to cheek rather than to encourage extensive commercial operations on the part of the Jews, the law was a wise one, and tended to repress covetousness in a form which would very readily have developed itself. Lending was to be free and cordial, and God’s blessing, the best usury, was promised in return.
2. Vows were to be faithfully performed (Deu 23:21-23). This checked covetousness, so far as that might prompt the person vowing to grudge payment when the time for paying his vow arrived. The vow was in his own choice, but, if made, it was to be religiously performed (Ecc 5:4, Ecc 5:5). It is easier to vow than at the proper time to make the sacrifices which the vow demands.J.O.
Deu 23:24, Deu 23:25
The vineyard and corn-field.
This law may be regarded:
1. As another check on covetousness. It restricted the operation of covetousness in the owner, and taught him to be generous and charitable.
2. As part of the Jewish provision for the poor (cf. Deu 24:19, Deu 24:20).
3. As a lesson in honesty. It taught those who used the privilege to restrain themselves to their immediate wants, and to respect on principle the rest of their neighbor’s property. It taught them to be honest by trusting them.
4. As giving every one an interest in the fruitfulness of the land. Custom and the force of public opinion would guard the law from abuse.J.O.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Deu 23:1-8
The congregation of the Lord jealously guarded.
There has been considerable controversy about what the term” entering into the congregation of the Lord signifies. It cannot be the Old Testament equivalent for our “communicants,” or “Church members;” for it would seem from Exo 12:48, Exo 12:49, that Jewish privileges were open to strangers on condition of their circumcision. Nor need we interpret it as merely indicating the marriage connections which Israelites were to avoid. We are satisfied with the interpretation, received by many, that the congregation () does not always signify the sum total of the people, but the great assembly of elders. The prohibitions in this passage would, therefore, mean prohibitions from holding office in the theocracy; in fact, they show those who were ineligible to the Jewish eldership. The ineligible parties are
1. Eunuchs. For physical perfection was indispensable in a kingdom typically and ideally to be perfect. Besides, it has been said that this excluded class are deficient in courage, which the elders required.
2. Those whose family had the “bar sinister“ within ten generations. This was a great penalty against concubinage, and must have made the Jews most particular about the legality of their marriages.
3. Amorites and Moabites. They are treated like those with the “bar sinister,” as a judgment on their inhuman treatment of Israel. So that there was caution to be exercised in the admission of outsiders to the honors of the Jewish commonwealth.
4. Edomites and Egyptians. They could not enter themselves, but their grandchildren were eligible. They were not kept waiting so long at the door as those previously mentioned. This jealous guarding of the gate is surely instructive.
I. IT SHOWS US THE DUTY OF LAYING HANDS SUDDENLY UPON NO MAN. This was Paul’s direction to Timothy regarding the ordination of elders (1Ti 5:22). Their selection was so important, that it should not be hastily or carelessly done. They should get time to prove themselves as worthy. And our ideal of Church officers should be so high as to allow of the introduction of no ill-qualified person through our haste or careless selection.
II. A CHURCH SHOULD MAINLY PRODUCE ITS OWN OFFICERS. Just as breeding is so important physically, so is Church training spiritually. It is the children in the tenth generation of the bastard who are, so to speak, by their ecclesiastical development through nine previous generations in ecclesiastical connection, to wipe out the ill effects of the “bar sinister.” The grandchildren of the Edomite and Egyptian are to be eligible, because for three generations connected with the Church. That Church will be strong who can train up from among her own children the officers she needs.
III. OFFICE IN GOD‘S CHURCH SHOULD BE THE HIGHEST AMBITION. For people are not in a wholesome state when they place offices in the world before those in the Church. God’s service is highest service, whatever current opinion may be. Let the thought of holding office in the Church of God be held before Church members as the very noblest ambition for themselves or their children, and then shall the Church he placed upon the pinnacle it deserves.R.M.E.
Deu 23:9-14
A pure camp for a pure King.
After insisting on purity giving power in war (Deu 23:9), and giving direction to men about putting away uncleanness which may be due to natural causes, Moses urges the precaution, because the All-seeing One walketh through the camp, Inspector of all their ways (Deu 23:14). The directions here given might have been urged on sanitary grounds, but Moses puts them deliberately upon religious. For the experience among Orientals and Occidentals is that something more than sanitary reasons is needed to overcome man’s indolence and keep him clean.
I. CLEANLINESS MAY BE RAISED INTO A PHASE OF GODLINESS. In the proverb it is said to be next to godliness; but here Moses makes it a part of godliness. Religion comes to the aid of science, and helps by its sanctions the wise regulations suggested by science. Witness how painfully slow remedial and sanitary measures are in getting adopted. It would be well if religion could aid the civil power in making sanitation a sacred thing in the eyes of the people,
The reason why cleanliness is not more sacred than it is, is a latent Manichaeanism, which seems to lurk in human nature; as if matter were essentially unholy, and could not be made sacred. But the religion of Christ lays hold of body as well as soul, and urges amens sana in corpore sago, and promises the perfection of its idea in a bodily resurrection. There is, consequently, a physical side to our religion, which should find expression in the consecration of cleanliness, and divers washings, and food and drink; all that religion may be a more manly and efficient thing. We believe thoroughly in the religious duty of denouncing dirt.
II. RELIGION IS LIFE SPENT IN THE REALIZED PRESENCE OF GOD. “Thou God seest me” is the watchword of religion. When all our life is brought under his eye, when we believe that the commonest and most trivial things are not beneath his notice, when we desire to hide nothing from him by night or by day,then the light of his pure being illumines and regulates all, and the highest purity is reached. “Muscular Christianity” is a good idea, if by it we mean that Christianity has a physical as well ,as spiritual sphere. No efforts of our own, muscular or otherwise, will ever save us; but, being saved by Divine grace, our whole being, muscles and all, is at God’s service. Religion in everything is the sense of God all through, and this should be our aim.
III. GOD IS THE CAPTAIN ONLY OF THE PURE. A holy camp is the preliminary to God leading Israel successfully against the enemy (Deu 23:14). The pure in heart see God and follow him to victory. It is the state of the camp of Israel, not the state of their enemies, that is all important. If Israel is impure, it will soon prove impotent. The pure are, in the long run, the powerful. God is on the side, not of the heaviest, but of the purest battalions. Really religious men are ultimately, under God, victorious.R.M.E.
Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16
The Hebrew fugitive law.
We have here a most remarkable law, entirely in the interests of the slave, and showing conclusively that no such thing as property in mankind was recognized in the theocracy. When a slave ran away, the person to whom he repaired is directed to harbor him and give him a place with his servants, but not to restore him to his former master. Here, then, is a fugitive law such as permitted no such monster as a slave-hunter to defile the land of Palestine.
I. THE BIBLE RECOGNIZES NO PROPERTY IN MAN. We cannot do better than quote from Dr. Cheerer’s ‘God against Slavery,’ He says, “The Jewish Law strictly forbade any one from ever returning unto his master that servant that had fled from his master to him. If an ox or an ass had strayed from its owner, any one finding the beast was commanded to restore it to its owner as his property; but if a man’s servant had fled away, every one was in like manner forbidden to restore him, demonstrating in the strongest manner that a servant was never regarded as property, and could not be treated as such. A man’s ox belonged to him, and must be restored to him as his property; but a man’s servant did not belong to him, and could not be his property, and, if he chose to take himself away, was not considered as taking away anything that belonged to his master or could be claimed and taken back by him. It is not possible for an incidental demonstration to be stronger than this.”
II. RUNAWAY SLAVES ARE ENTITLED TO AN OPPORTUNITY OF EARNING A LIVELIHOOD. Not only is he not to be restored, but he is also to be allowed a place in the establishment to which he has escaped. Doubtless he had a good idea of a vacancy being there, and the need for an extra servant. In such a case he is to get his chance, and be allowed without oppression to earn his livelihood. We do not assert that every human being, no matter how “heart-lazy,” has a right to a living; but every one has surely a right to a livelihood. It is the organization of labor and livelihoods, rather than poor-laws, that should engross the attention of philanthropists.
III. WHILE MEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO OUR PERSONS, GOD HASWE ARE HIS. We are God’s slaves. “We are bought with a price,” and therefore bound to glorify trim with our bodies (1Co 6:20). He has a title to us by virtue of creation; but for him we should not have existed. He has a title to us by virtue of his providence; for in him we not only live, but move and have our being. He has a title to us by virtue of redemption; for he has redeemed us at no less a cost than the blood of his Son. He has a title to us by virtue of his inspirations; for any good and holy desires and aspirations we entertain are through the indwelling of his Spirit. If we intelligently recognize our position, we shall own our obligations to him, and acknowledge we are slaves of God. But his slavery is “perfect freedom.” Better to be the Lord’s slave than the world’s freeman. His Law is “the perfect Law of liberty,” and when under it we are realizing that broadest phase of freedom which has made his slaves the mightiest of men.R.M.E.
Deu 23:17-25
Money-making must be above suspicion.
We have in these verses an excellent lesson upon mercantile morality. There are too many people in this world who are not at all particular how money is made, if only it be made. “The wages of iniquity” are as welcome to them as to Balaam. But it is plain from these verses that the Lord does regard the way money is won, and will not handle what has come licentiously himself, nor give any countenance to his people in doing so.
I. MONEY MADE BY WICKEDNESS IS ABHORRED OF GOD. The wretched woman who lives by her own dishonor, the wretched man who lends himself to licentiousness, are both intolerable to the Divine King. The idols of the heathen may receive the wages of licentiousness, and be served by lewd women, as the history of heathenism shows, but God will have no such dedications polluting his house. As the Holy One, he will not be served by the deliberately unholy and profane.
II. MONEY MADE OUT OF THE NEEDS OF THE POOR SAINTS IS ALSO AS ABOMINATION TO GOD. It was a noble law that Jew was not to play the money-lender to few. To extort from a brother what his needs can ill afford to pay, is forbidden. The Jews were to be brothers indeed, in readiness to lend without hope of recompense. And although this arrangement may not be literally binding under this dispensation, there is a general idea abroad of the undesirableness of making money out of God’s poor people. There is to be special consideration shown surely to those who are of the household of faith (Gal 6:10). We should suspect a man of worldliness who extorted big interest from a struggling Church, when well able to advance the desperately needed loan.
III. A SPHERE FOR USURY IS RECOGNIZED BY THE LORD. The stranger may borrow under an engagement to pay interest. This is only right. If usury were universally forbidden, the world of commerce would come to a standstill. Capital would not accumulate if it had no reward awaiting it. The stranger, consequently, comes and asks the favor of a loan. He has no claim on you for it, but he is willing to pay a fair price for the obligation. The whole edifice of commerce rests upon the legality of such a transaction, it is a mutual benefit.
At the same time, there may be extortion and speculation in usury, just as in other lines of business; and God shows that “extortioners” (1Co 6:10) have no part in his kingdom. It is selfishness pure and simple, and in its most tyrannical and despicable form.
IV. ALL VOWS REGISTERED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR MONEY–MAKING MUST BE FAITHFULLY PERFORMED. It is almost a natural instinct that vows should be made unto the Lord in connection with our prosperity. Often a person struggling to realize an “honest profit,” while the transaction is only in progress, and the issue is still uncertain, dedicates a proportion, if the Lord send him success; or a proportion of a new crop, if it be a good one. Such vows must never be recalled, but always honor-ably met. “Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay” (Ecc 5:5).
V. THE RIGHTS OF THE HUNGRY SHOULD ALSO BE RESPECTED IF A LAND IS TO ENJOY SUCCESS. The vines are so productive in Palestine, when properly cultivated, and the vineyards so unprotected, that a hungry passenger may fill himself and no one be a bit the poorer. Or he may enter the field of standing corn and make what use he can of his hands. In other words, the hungry was regarded as having a right to satisfy the cravings of nature and to pass on.
And when it was placed on the statute-book as a right, it saved the poor man’s self-respect and never interfered with his personal freedom. This “poor-law” gives man his need without asking him to surrender his liberty. This is its beauty, it meets the pressing necessity without destroying the person’s legitimate self-respect. Liberty is more precious to any upright soul than bread; and it is a wholesome instinct which, as far as possible, should be respected in any beneficent national arrangement.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY D. DAVIES
Deu 23:1-6
Loss of sacred privilege a grievous penalty.
In such passages as this, very much more is intended than is expressed. We have to read between the lines, for only they who lived in those days of Jewish life could comprehend the shadowy hints, the pregnant suggestions, which are here reduced to words.
I. THE ABUSE OF REPRODUCTIVE VITALISM IS A GIGANTIC SIN. The law of the natural kingdom, with regard to every species of life, that its “seed should be in itself,” obtains in man its highest form. But here human inclination, passion, will come into play. It is an honor which God has conferred upon us, in that he has made us agents co-operating with him in the perpetuation of the human race. And the abuse of this function is followed forthwith by the Divine censure. In many cases, judgment swiftly follows upon the heels of the sin. As at Bethpeor, sudden and overwhelming penalty fell upon the Jewish culprits who yielded to the seductive snares of the Moabite women, so that there fell of the Hebrews four and twenty thousand men; so summary vengeance falls upon such transgressors still. Adultery and incest are stamped with the red brand of God’s hottest wrath. One feels in reading the shameful narrative of Lot’s incest at Zoar, as if the historian had not left on it the burning stigma of indignation; but we may draw no such conclusion from his silence. In this chapter we perceive how the blank is filled. The issue of that incestuous intercourse are branded with perpetual shame.
II. THIS GIGANTIC SIN BEGETS A SERIES OF GIGANTIC EVILS.
1. It begets callous selfishness in posterity. God did not forget that the Moabites and Ammonites refused the common necessaries of life to the Hebrews, who sought nothing more than a friendly passage through their territory. Although this sin was a branch and offspring from the first, it was something new, and demanded fresh chastisement. For every offence in God’s kingdom there is prepared a just measure of retribution.
2. It begets malicious opposition. They hired, in their blindness, the services of Balaam, the sorcerer, in the hope that he would blast and ruin them with his witchery and curse. The end was frustrated. The purchased curse was changed into blessing. Nevertheless, the intention was criminal. The hearts of the Moabites burned with hate for their kinsmen; and base intentions shall be scourged.
3. It begets idolatry and blind fanaticism.
III. SUCH EVILS CULMINATE IN JUSTEST PUNISHMENTS. Suitable penalties begin to appear in this life.
1. There is the loss of external privilege. Such “shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” What? Not when the present generation has passed away? No; not to the tenth generation! No; not forever. Possibly the culprits despised the privilege, mocked at the loss. But none the less was it an immeasurable loss, a terrible privation. It is not said that a penitent Moabite should not be forgivenshould not obtain eternal life. Yet the loss of external instruction and help lessened the probability that penitence would visit the soul. We do ourselves wrong when we contemn religious privilege.
2. There is the loss of friendly intercession. “Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity forever.” Prayer for such is interdicted. Brotherly sympathy is denied. The Hebrews were ordained to be a nation of priests. The intention was that, by virtue of their growing piety, they should be, as an entire nation, the priests of the Lord, while foreigners should immigrate to be their husbandmen and vine-dressers. By reason of the Jew’s superior knowledge of God, they might be successful intercessors for other nations. But from this gracious privilege the Moabites and Ammonites were permanently excluded. Despise not the prayers of the devout.D.
Deu 23:7, Deu 23:8
Terminable chastisements.
The sting in God’s curse is its irreversibleness. The bitter draught is dashed with mercy when we have prospect that it shall cease.
I. THE CONDUCT OF SOME MEN IS A STRANGE ADMIXTURE OF GOOD AND BAD. There were some fine traits in Esau’s character commingled with coarse and selfish obstinacy. Light was interfused with darkness. The treatment of Israel by the Edomites was not the most friendly, nor was it decidedly hostile. It was marked by haughty reserve rather than by malignant hostility. So also the Egyptians were not wholly antagonistic to Israel. For more than four hundred years the Hebrews had found sustenance and shelter in Goshen. If the last Pharaoh had oppressed them with bitter bondage, a former Pharaoh had blest them with unusual kindness. From desolating famine, Egypt had shielded them. This shall not be forgotten; it shall temper chastisement. The remoter peoples shall be admitted to God’s kingdom, while those nearer at hand shall be excluded.
II. SUCH CONDUCT RECEIVES DUE MEASURE OF CHASTISEMENT. It is impossible to entertain the best feelings of affection towards such persons. Yet we are to be just in our estimate of them. We are not to fasten our eyes only on the dark side of their characters. As far as it is possible we should be generous in feeling. “Thou shalt not abhor them.” The present generation of such, and their children, shall be excluded from the privileges of the righteous. But there the ban shall terminate. If children of wisdom, we shall endure such chastisement with patient resignation
“For patient suffering is the link
That binds us to a glorious morrow.”
III. THE INHERITANCE OF BLESSING IS IN REVERSION. “Weeping may endure for a night: joy cometh in the morning.” The night is temporary; the day will be eternal. However dark be their present lot under the frown of Jehovah, the light of hope shines beyondlights up the future. We live in our children. It alleviates our present burden when we are assured that our children shall be exempt. More often should we stand in awe of sin, if we did but perceive the miseries we were entailing on posterity. The revelations of the future are a valuable guide for the present.D.
Deu 23:15, Deu 23:16
Sympathy for the oppressed.
It is supposed that oppressive forms of slavery existed among the neighboring nations; and it might be anticipated that the oppressed would seek asylum among the people of God. The social atmosphere was to be that of healthful freedom, which is fatal to inhuman thraldom.
I. WE SEE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP IN ITS EXTREME LIMITS. One is a master; one is a slave. One has risen to power; one has sunk into weakness. Humanity has immense capacity for rising and falling. Such abject dependence may be the result of external calamity, or it may be the effect of culpable folly.
II. THIS PROPRIETORSHIP IN MAN IS CAPABLE OF GREAT ABUSE. A slave-master must have great self-restraint if he does not abuse his purchased power. To no man ought irresponsible control over his fellows be entrusted. The temptation to encroach on human rights is too great to be put within any man’s reach. Good men will use every position they occupy so as to do good to others; and even a slave-holder may be a source of large blessing. On the other hand, coarse and cruel men can turn the institution into a nest of villainy.
III. ABUSE OF SLAVERY MAY BECOME SELF–CURATIVE. A reflecting master will calculate that, if he injure his slave, he injures his propertyhe injures himself. But in moments when passion is dominant, a reckless slave-holder will think nothing about consequences. Yet his slave may flee. The common instincts of humanity will impel disinterested persons to aid the fugitive. And the successful flight of one will encourage others to make the attempt.
IV. THE OPPRESSED HAVE A CLAIM UPON OUR PRACTICAL SYMPATHY. The Hebrews could not easily discover the real merits of quarrel between a foreign slave and his master. But they would know that a slave would not leave his master and his home without sufficient cause. It was a precarious chance how an alien slave would find a livelihood. Therefore the refugee had a claim upon the Hebrews’ sympathy. The oppressed of every laud have a large place in the heart of God, and every friend of God will strive to imitate his deeds. Emmanuel’s land is to be the laud of liberty. Liberty may not suddenly be given to every man, in any condition of mind; yet liberty is man’s birthrighthis true inheritance; for this he is to prepare. A man is dwarfed, stunted, deformed, if he be not free.D.
Deu 23:18
Unacceptable offerings.
The value of religious offerings in God’s sight is not measured by their magnitude, nor by splendor, but by the spiritual motive that originates them.
I. GOD HAS NO SEED OF HUMAN OFFERINGS. He is absolutely independent of his creatures. “The gold and silver” are already his. If he had need of these things, he would create them. The advantage of religious offerings belongs to man. The offerer is the party blest. Spiritual benefits (not to be measured or weighed in earthly balances) are obtained in exchange.
II. ILL–GOTTEN GAINS ARE BY HIM REJECTED. To accept such would be to connive at wickedness. It is often for this profane end that men bring them. They hope thereby to make the residue the more safe, and a base calling the more respectable. In a word, they desire to take God into unhallowed partnership with themselves. To him this can be only abominationa stench in his nostrils.
III. RELIGIOUS OFFERINGS ARE MEASURED BY THEIR MORAL WORTH. The mite of the widow was estimated by the genuine love that inspired it. It was a solid nugget of spiritual affection. Seldom has the love of the human heart been so completely converted into a material gift. It was but one remove from creation. That widow would have poured out her very soul in creating gifts for God if she might. It is this sterling and practical love which God values. Offerings that are not the exponents of grateful feeling are nothing worth. God has a scale of moral arithmetic, and all religious offerings are placed in the balances of the sanctuary.D.
Deu 23:19, Deu 23:20
Usury lawful and unlawful.
From all conduct the element of selfishness is to be eliminated. All forms of honorable commerce are permitted, because, while the end is gain, it is not solely gain; seller and buyer both obtain advantage.
I. OUR CONDUCT IS TO BE REGULATED BY RELATIONSHIP. Kindly feeling is due unto all men. We should honor man as man. Yet the conduct which is commendable to a stranger is not commendable to a father. According to the degree of propinquity should be the degree of affection. A brother has claims upon us which a stranger has not. Our stock of affection is limited; we are to bestow it on most suitable objects. Our capacity for doing good is measurable; we must expend it with care,
II. MONEY GAIN IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF LIFE. There are occupations nobler than money-getting. Contentment is better than gold. The culture of the mind is better. The discipline of the moral powers is better. Brotherly kindness is better. The diffusion of knowledge is better. Earthly prosperity is to be hailed especially as a condition for doing good. To have, and yet to refuse to help, is a sin. That man’s gold is a curse.
III. YET MONEY GAIN, WITHIN PROPER LIMITS, IS WISE AND HONORABLE. Properly viewed, moderate usury is but a species of commerce. If with my loan of a thousand pounds a shrewd merchant makes a gain of a hundred pounds in addition, it is just that I should receive a part thereof, as the earning of my loan. If one has money capital and another has skill and a third has time, it is simply equitable that the temporal earnings of the partnership should be divided, in some proportion, among all. If I obtain fair usury for the use of my money from honest traders, have power to help impoverished brethren to an extent I could not otherwise. God had not intended that the Hebrews should be a commercial nation, Their business was to be witness-bearers to the world of heavenly truth.D.
Deu 23:21-23
The place of vows.
It is not obligatory to make vows; it is obligatory to fulfill them. We are often free to contract an obligation; we are not free to violate it. A man is not bound to marry; having married, he is bound to cherish his wife.
I. VOWS IMPLY SPECIAL ACTS OF KINDNESS ON THE PART OF GOD. The ordinary course of God’s bounty baffles verbal description. The forethought, the active energy, the well-laid plans, the unslumbering attention, the changeless affection, which are required for the preservation of human life, no language can express. But this is not all that God does for us. In times of unusual perplexity, special guidance is often vouchsafed to us. When surrounding events seemed most adverse to our interests, in answer to prayer, sudden deliverance has come. A precious life was in jeopardy: human help was unavailing; but God graciously interposed, and midnight suddenly became a summer noon.
II. VOWS IMPLY, ON OUR PART, DEFECTIVE PIETY. Vows are made under the influence of excessive fear or from an influx of sudden joy. In a time of sharp distress, a man will put himself under special obligation, if God will grant his request. Or, when some expected good has fallen to one’s lot, in the impulse of sudden gladness we vow to devote some special offering unto God. Now, this is not wrong. Still there is something better. It is better to be always in a frame of trustful feeling, so that we may welcome whatever God ordains, and realize that what God does is best. It is better to rely upon his promise that help shall come in times of need! It is better to cultivate the habit of frequent offerings to God’s cause, so that no vow is needed to prick us up to the full discharge of duty. The vow implies that we cannot trust ourselves at all times to give to God his due. Therefore our endeavor should be to cultivate a childlike and a steadfast faith. It is good that the “heart be established with grace.”
III. VOWS CREATE FOR US A NEW OBLIGATION. Having made a debt, we are bound to pay it; but it is better not to accumulate a debt. Men lay a trap to catch themselves. Conscious of deficient trust and love towards God, they take advantage of some favorable state of feeling to make new obligations from which it shall be difficult to escape. In their better moods of mind they create new motives and new sanctions for religious conduct, which they cannot remove when the better feeling has vanished. They use the rising tide to bear their barque away. They utilize summer piety to provide for winter coldness. But having framed a religious vow, truth requires that it should be scrupulously kept. To violate a vow would injure our own soul’s lifewould deaden and stupefy conscience, would justly provoke our God. No common sin is this.D.
Deu 23:24, Deu 23:25
Possession of earthly things only partial
The mode and condition of human life in this world serve a moral purpose. A material body requires material food; material food implies material possessions. The use of these affords fine scope for the development of many virtues. Without material possessions, selfishness would scarcely be possible; nor could some moral qualities, as generosity, find a field for exercise.
I. EARTHLY ESTATE ADMITS ONLY OF A PARTIAL POSSESSION. We cannot retain for our exclusive use the beauty of the hills, or the fragrance of the flowers within territory called “our own.” It is not possible for us to appropriate to our personal use all the products of our fields. Restrict the enjoyment as we may, we can succeed only to a limited extent. And why should we make the attempt? It adds immensely to our real pleasure to share the products with others. Indiscriminate appropriation of harvests would do good to no one. It would diminish productiveness. It would create waste; it would promote idleness. But profuse generosity is not only pleasurable: it is profitable. We gain the esteem of men. The whole community bands together to protect our crops. God smiles on our fields and our toil.
II. HUNGER HAS UNQUESTIONABLE CLAIM ON NATURE‘S PRODUCTS. Be our skilful labor to secure a harvest what it may, the largest possible, yet we cannot forget that God too has contributed largely to make our fields productive. In God’s contribution to the result, his poor ones ought to share. Lest the ordinary philanthropy of men might not suffice for this need of poverty, God himself has taken the poor under his sheltering wing; he has become their Champion, he has proclaimed a law for the protection of the needy. Inasmuch as God retains absolute proprietorship over all created things, and counts the richest men as his chief stewards, he has fullest right to determine on what conditions his bounty shall be enjoyed. When man has added his labor to the result, when he has garnered his crops, the condition is changed; but so long as it is standing in the field, hunger may find a meal.
III. THOUGH HUNGER HAS A CLAIM, COVETOUSNESS HAS NONE. The laborer or the weary traveler had a statutory right to relieve his existing hunger; he had no right to carry any fruit or corn away. This would be to abuse a precious privilege. “Thus far might they go, and no farther.” The path of obedience always has been narrow. Here was a test of trust in God. He who has provided a meal for the hungry man today can also provide another meal tomorrow. Or, if one door is closed, cannot God open another? Covetousness is suicidal. In the long run it defeats its own ends. Careful obedience is a first fruit of genuine trust. Give a bad man an inch, and he will take an ell. By this he may be known. But a good man is as careful of another man’s possessions as of his own. This is but another outcome of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Ver. 1. Shall not enter into the congregation This law is directed against the infamous practice of making eunuchs: such persons were not to be deemed Israelites, nor have their names entered in the public register, and consequently were not to be accounted members of the Jewish community. See Selden de Jure N. & G. lib. 5: cap. 14 and Neh 13:1-3, compared with 23, 24, 25. Eunuchs were so much abhorred by some of the pagans, that Lucian, in Eunucho, tells us, they were not only excluded from the schools of the philosophers, but from their lustrations, their holy offices, and all common meetings. It should, however, be observed, that paganism, in some places, recommended this practice; the priests of Cybele, the mother of the gods in particular, were all of this class. Casaubon observes upon Athenaeus, that some heathens anciently put such a mark of infamy upon bastards, mentioned in the next verse, as to prohibit both males and females from coming to their sacred offices.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The perfection of Israel
Deu 23:1 to Deu 26:19
The Commonwealth of Jehovah
(Deu 23:1-8)
1He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off [one through bruising injured or emasculated] shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation 3[member] shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever: 4Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they [he, the Moabite] hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. 5Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam: but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee. 6Thou shalt not seek their peace, nor their prosperity [welfare, margin: good] all thy days for eDeut Deu 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an 8Egyptian, because [for] thou wast a stranger in his land. The children [sons] that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
After the close of this exposition, application and completion of the decalogue, there is indicated now a delineation of Israel in the most varied aspects, especially as the Kahal Jehovah from the beginning to the close of the section. Deu 23:1. Wounded, sq., through crushing, (the pressing and rubbing of the testicles) designates the eunuch as the crushed , (Septuagint). Cut off, the urethra, the completely castrated. The refusal to admit them into the communion of the covenant is explained by the congregation of the Lord, the community consecrated to Him. If of animals, Lev 22:24, how much more of men! Comp. Lev 22:18 sq. Israel is a priestly (Lev 21:17 sq.) community. Comp. Exo 20:22. Only the unmutilated image of God as in its creation can come before Jehovah, the Elohim, and the people who should be permanent must possess the fitting organs of generation (Num 16:3; Num 20:4); comp. Isa 56:3 sq.[They could not be admitted to the full privileges of the congregation of Jehovah; but they were received as proselytes, Act 8:27; and the prophets show that this ban was to be removed when the reason for this restriction should be done away by the fuller presence and work of the Holy Spirit.A. G.]There was somewhere ever human guilt in the circumstances. So also with the , Deu 23:3 (only elsewhere in Zec 9:6). Meier: 1) a foreigner, 2) heterogeneous, i.e., bastard; Knobel (Keil) in the sense of corruption, foulness, filth, one stained in his conception and birth; Delitzsch: equivalent with mongrel; others: as contracted from and , or from Sept. and Vulg., as the child of fornication, which neither agrees with the connection here nor with the rest of the Old Testament; rather as the Syriac: the conception of adultery; still better: the child born of incest [so Keil, Wogue, the Bib. Com., and the Rabbins.A. G.], (Gen 19:30 sq.), whence the religious and political application to the mingling of the Israelites and heathen may be more fully comprehended. Comp. Isa 56:3; Joh 8:41. (The Jew Salvador designates Jesus as a mamser)To the tenth generation, the number 10 denoting the perfect, absolute exclusion from Israel, as also, Deu 23:3, the addition forever. If the ground in Deu 23:1 is found in the human deed upon the body, so now in the immorality through the human will. With the physical, the moral, there is now connected, Deu 23:3, the religio-political, with respect to the theocratically forever-excluded Ammonites and Moabites (Lam 1:10). Deu 23:4. The reason: the still freshly remembered hostility restrained only by fear on their side, as on the side of Israel by the respect enjoined upon them Deu 2:19 sq.; 9 sq. (4 sq.; 29). In violation of every custom of hospitality (even in savage tribes, Isa 21:13 sq.), not to speak of the natural affection of kindred, they did not meet Israel with the necessaries of life. This is the point which is made against both. As the Moabites only dwelt in Ar (chap. 2), so now the transaction with Balaam on the part of Moab in which the intense hostility against Israel appears, is viewed as common with both. Comp. upon Numbers 22, [See SmithsBib. Dic. Art. Ammon.A. G.] As the singular, , is used of Moab, represented by its king, so also Israel is spoken of in the singular, thee. Person against person, God Himself must intervene, Deu 23:5; there is no failure in the will of Moab. The designed cursing of Israel, as the highest degree of hostility, God turns to blessing, and uses the service of the prophet in doing it. It is only the necessary line of Israels conduct, therefore, which, Deu 23:6 announces, since according to the promise of God resting upon Israel, Gen 12:3, which Balaam himself must repeat, Num 24:9, this could not cease at the present stand-point of this growing (werdens) and wrestling soldier of God. Comp. still Ezr 9:12. Mat 5:44; Luk 6:28; Rom 12:14, are possible first in Christ, in whom David reaches perfection in Solomon. It is not malicious zeal (Knobel), or even national hatred or revenge, which is spoken of here, comp. Deu 2:9, and also the immediately following direction. Comp. further Jer 29:7; Neh 13:1 sq. (In reference to Ruth, the Talmud limits the exclusion to males.) Comp. also 2 Samuel 10. for personal exceptions.[Bib. Com.: Such a law would certainly never have suggested itself to the mind of a writer after the time of David, whose great-grandmother was a Moabitess.A. G.]
Deu 23:7. , the expression for the technical theocratic abhorrence, e.g.Deu 22:5. In the case of Edom the tie of brotherhood should prevail, notwithstanding all its acts of hostility; in Egypt, the hospitality they had received, although they had been oppressed by Pharaoh. Comp. Doct. and Eth. 6, upon Deu 1:6 to Deu 4:40, Hengstenberg, Moses and Egypt. In a statement springing from a view of the living relations, the contrasts or opposition which actual life every where presents are suffered to appear; in a mythical statement they would be carefully obliterated. Such motives as are here urged were only near and of force at the time of Moses. Deu 23:8 concerns the great-grandsons of those who had united with Israel by circumcision, or who had settled among them. Others: the grandchildren.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Circumcision, not concision, or the entire excision. Php 3:2 sq.
2. How great the contrast between Jehovah and the heathen gods, in whose service the very mutilation in this respect availed as a peculiar consecration and holiness. Baumgarten.
3. The moral blamelessness of the Lords people, and its sacred nobility of birth.
4. Ammon and Moab as they are one in their origin, so throughout in their relation to Israel. Leaving out of view their incestuous origin, with which they are not charged, they were still, as to their origin, much farther removed from Israel than Edom. Their opposition to Israel is not in their origin, but rather out of their origin, as it asserts itself immediately in the disposition, in conscious enmity. In Edom the injustice done to their tribe-father may humanly be regarded as an excuse. Still more love may hope for a solution of the conflict between natural revengefulness and the divine choice. The fear of Edom before the divine in Israel need not strengthen itself into hatred. In any case Israel must hold its privileges open to Edom, which is directly forbidden with reference to Moab and Ammon through their conscious enmity; they are by demonic reflection what Amalek was by demonic passion. As to what is warlike, Ammon gave the tone to the boastful and tragico-comical Moab. Its hostility to the Lords people continues to the end. Lust and cruelty characterize its religion. Comp. Schultz, p. 164 sq.
5. [God shows here that He regards nations as having a corporate existence, and deals with them according to their national acts. Egypt was to be kindly dealt with for its past favors to Israel. Former kindnesses were to be remembered, and past injuries to be forgotten. WordsworthA. G.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Deu 23:2. Richter: Ideally no one can attain to heavenly citizenship who is not born of God in the true way, John 3. Deu 23:3. Reichel: The Moabites hated the priestly kingdom of God as such, and would have it cursed throughout. On the other hand, they were not so ignorant as the other heathen, but sinned against their better knowledge. Whoever wishes good to such enemies, he helps to condemn and persecute the people of God, 2Jn 1:10. Deu 23:4. Richter: Thus many a one still draws down upon himself the anger of God. Balaam, Balak, have their places in the Apocalypse. Deu 23:5. Osiander: Gods love, not ours, is the cause of all blessedness. Deu 23:6. Schultz: It is opposition to godlessness, indeed to enmity to God, which is not removed even by Rom 12:18, which is here fundamentally regarded. Deu 23:7. The import of kinship. Theodoret: He will teach us never to forget former kindnesses. Osiander: Early kindnesses should avail with us above later injuries. Schultz: Notwithstanding all hostility, we should recognize the good in our opponents. Deu 23:8. Starke: In the Old Testament even the door of grace stood open to the heathen; the partition wall is done away in Christ, Eph 2:12-14. Berl. Bib.: This also has its spiritual significance for the congregation of believers in the New Testament, Eph 5:27. Hence all must be put away who are unfruitful in good, who are of no use to their brother in bodily or spiritual things, all rough worldly men, etc.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter is but a continuation of the same subject as in the former. Here are certain laws for the preservation of Israel, as an holy people to the LORD, without blemish and without imperfection; laws, also, for the keeping in purity the camp, and the persons of LORD’S people; against whoredom, usury, the breach of vows, and encroachments on another’s property.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The disqualification to the privileges of GOD’S people, is expressed by these marks, which imply defect. Who shall say, except the great searcher of hearts, what are the causes of prevention, to unite souls really and spiritually to the congregation of the LORD. And, perhaps, as the prospect of the holy seed in the person of the Messiah, was the great object unto which all Israel looked forward, with the hope that it might be in their household and family; the LORD was pleased, by this precept, to manifest how important a matter it was, that there should be no intercourse by marriages with the idolatrous neighbours around them. In after ages we find the breach of this precept deeply lamented by the fathers; see Neh_13:1-3; Neh_13:23-25 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(See the Deuteronomy Book Comments for Introductory content and Homiletic suggestions).
XIII
SECOND GREAT ORATION, PART 2
Deuteronomy 12-26
This section is on the second part of the second great oration of Moses, as embodied in Deuteronomy 12-26 inclusive, of the book of Deuteronomy. If you have carefully read all this section, it will be easier for me to emphasize in the brief limits of this chapter the most salient points and easier for you to grasp and retain them. By the grouping of correlated matters under specific heads, the important distinction between many statutes and the constitutional principle from which they are logically derived will become manifest. A constitution is a relatively brief document of great principles, but legislative enactments developing and enlarging them become a library, which continually enlarges, as new conditions require new statement and application.
Yet again you must note that while one discussion arranges in order many statutes, it necessarily leaves out much of the homiletical value of each special statute. Each one of them may be made a text for a profitable sermon. Indeed these fifteen chapters constitute a gold mine of texts for the attentive preacher.
First of all, it should be noted that Moses is speaking here to the whole people as a national unit and concerning the future national life in the Promised Land which they are about to occupy. He carefully puts before them the national ideal of a people belonging to Jehovah separated from other nations and devoted to a special mission. Because addressing the whole people he recalls the history and law in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers much more particularly than the special legislation of Leviticus relating mainly to the official duties of a single tribe.
Secondly, when he touches the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy, it is as a part of the nation rather than about their specific duties as priests and Levites. On this account Deuteronomy is called the people’s code and Leviticus the priest’s code. This fact will help us much to understand tithing in Deuteronomy when compared with tithing in the preceding books. Note carefully this point.
While it is difficult to classify satisfactorily such a multitude of topics and laws, we may profitably group the whole section under the following heads:
I. Unity in the Place of National Worship, Deu 12:5
In their pilgrimage history the cloud and the ark, shifting from place to place according to the exigency of travel, designated day by day the central place of worship. But the people are here admonished that when they conquer the land and become a settled people, God himself will designate one fixed locality as the center of national unity and one permanent place of national worship. In Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel, when we get to those books, we shall find only a temporary central place, and occasionally, more than one at the same time, the land not yet all conquered, the people not yet all settled, but in David’s time everything prescribed about the central place of worship is fulfilled, Jerusalem is the place thenceforward throughout their history until Jesus, that prophet like unto Moses, comes and says to the woman of Samaria, “Believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.”
To this place, that is, the central place of worship, three times a year must the tribes come in national assembly to keep the great festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and as a nation they must observe the great day of atonement. In this connection observe particularly that the tithing in Deuteronomy, to which we have before referred, is not the first tithe of the other books, which was the Lord’s inheritance and devoted to the general support of the great festivals, in which indeed the Levites share as a part of the people. Hence the Levites’ share of this tithe does not correspond to their title to the whole of the first tithe, and hence the third year’s provision in Deuteronomy for the poor is unlike any provision of the first tithe. If you have that point fixed in your minds, you are able to answer one of the gravest objections ever brought against Deuteronomy, that is, that it contradicts, on the question of tithes, what had been previously said in other books.
The marvelous effect of this one fixed place of national worship, and of these great festivals, on national unity, on the preservation of a pure worship, appears in all their subsequent history and becomes the theme of psalm, song, and elegy. When we get over into the Psalms and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we will see backward references to this central place of worship. It is in the light of this law that we discover the sin in the later migration of the Danites and their setting up a new place of worship (Jdg 18 , particularly verses Jdg 18:27-31 ); the sin of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:26-33 ); the sin of the Samaritans later, and the sin of a temple in Egypt. That is the first thought, the unity in national worship. For an account of the Samaritan Temple see Josephus, “Antiquities,” Book XI, chapter 8, and for the Egyptian Temple see “Antiquities,” Book XIII, chapter 3.
2. Unity in the Object of Worship
The second thought in this oration is unity in the object of worship, the exclusive worship of Jehovah. Under this head the section prescribes the death penalty on the following:
(1) The false prophet, who however attested by signs and wonders, shall seek to divert the people to the worship of some other god.
(2) Any member of a family, however near and dear the tie of kindred, who sought to induce the rest of the family to turn away from the worship of Jehovah to worship another god, that member of the family had to die.
(3) Any city that turned aside as a municipality to other worship, that city must be placed under the ban and blotted out. If you have been much of a student of classic literature, you must have noticed how each city stresses the worship of some particular patron divinity, as Minerva at Athens, Diana in the City of Ephesus and Venus at Corinth. Now, this law teaches that any city, in its municipal life, turning aside from the worship of Jehovah to worship a false god for local advantage shall be blotted off the face of the map. The underlying principle here is of immense importance in our times. Cities are tempted continually to sacrifice the paramount spiritual and moral interests of the community in order to promote material interests. So in their annual fairs which bring local advantage in commercial affairs, they lose sight of God and handicap what is commendable in these enterprises by overloading them with poisonous and corrupting attachments, and count any man an enemy to his home place, however much he may approve the good, if he protest against the bad. See the striking examples and illustrations in the cases at Philippi and Ephesus (Act 16:19 ).
(4) To show more emphatically that Jehovah alone is God and must be worshiped, the death penalty was assessed on any necromancer, soothsayer or wizard who sought by illicit ways to understand and interpret the future. To Jehovah alone must the people come to know secret things. What he chose to reveal was for them and their children. What he withheld must remain hidden. All prurient curiosity into Jehovah’s domain of revelation must be rebuked; all seeking unto the dead, all fortunetelling and divinations were mortal sins and punishable by death in every case.
(5) All persons guilty of crimes against nature; the nature of the subject forbids me to specify. They were such outrageous violations of the dignity of man made in God’s image, and indicated such disregard for Jehovah that capital punishment alone would meet the requirements of the case.
(6) Every breaker of the covenant must be put to death. If any had knowledge that another had violated the covenant, it became his duty to investigate the case and bring the attention of the magistrates to it. There is a reference to that in the letter to the Hebrews, where it is said, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God [offense against the Father], and hath counted the blood of the everlasting covenant an unholy thing [sin against the Son], and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace [sin against the Holy Spirit, and an unpardonable sin]?” (Heb 10:28-29 ).
(7) To impress still more this thought of the exclusive worship of Jehovah: There must be no borrowing from other religions in bewailing the dead; Jehovah’s law alone was the one exclusive standard. The custom of cutting themselves, and disfiguring themselves in the days of their mourning as practiced in other religions, finds here a positive prohibition. I stop to say, Oh, what a pity that so soon after apostolic times, in the great apostasy which Paul predicted and which took place in the Roman Catholic development, there was borrowing old robes of every religion in the world.
3. All Administrations of Law Subject to Jehovah
Whether ceremonial law, moral or civil and criminal law, all administration of law was subject to Jehovah. The government was a theocracy pure and simple, no matter whether it remained a republic or became a kingdom, as it did in the days of Saul, it was a theocracy, God was the only real King and governed all officers himself, whether executive, judicial, or religious.
(1) They were representatives of Jehovah and must first of all consider his honor, justice, and mercy. This fact determined the prescribed character and qualifications of every prince, ruler, elder, judge, sheriff and scribe. These officers must be God-fearing men, hating covetousness, impartial and fearing not the face of any man.
(2) They must in judging hear all evidence fairly.
(3) They must not convict except upon adequate testimony.
(4) It took two good witnesses to prove any point.
(5) They must justify the innocent and condemn the guilty without any regard for age, sex, social position, or financial position. Even and exact justice must be administered to all.
(6) Decision when given must be enforced speedily.
(7) If the case was too hard for them, they must appeal to Jehovah and no other for light. A provision was made by which Jehovah would give the right answer in every such case of appeal. What a pity we have not that kind of a supreme court!
(8) The conduct of all their wars must be under the laws prescribed by Jehovah. War must not be declared against any nation except upon his direction. Their later history furnishes many examples of referring the declaration of war to Jehovah, and it furnishes many examples of disaster befalling them when they went to war in their own wisdom and strength. The regulations touching war covered all material points, such as sanitary measures in camp, treatment of prisoners, conducting sieges, and sparing fruit trees when besieging a city. The boasted progress of modern civilization falls far short of the Mosaic code in ameliorating the sufferings and horrors of war. A great Federal general of the War Between the States well said, in view of his own practice in conducting it, “War is hell!”
(9) On account of this subordination to Jehovah, note the remarkable paragraph Deu 21:1-9 , touching civic responsibility in a case of murder where the offender is unknown. In my prohibition speech in the last prohibition contest in Waco, I used that paragraph as a principle upon which prohibition is based. If you will look at the passage in your Bible and mark it, you will notice that the case is this: A man is found murdered and it is not known who killed him; the nearest city thereto is determined by measurement and must purge itself of responsibility for the crime. The municipal officers in that city must come in the presence of that dead body, hold up their hands before God and swear that they are innocent of the blood.
In my speech I recalled the case of the County Attorney of Tarrant County who was shot down on the streets of Fort Worth, his murderer also being killed; nobody could be held directly responsible for the murder. I said, “Suppose the mayor, the city council, and all the other city officers had been required to place their hands on that dead body and swear that no negligence on their part was resposnible for that murder. They could not have taken the oath. Every one would have been convicted, because they were responsible for the conditions that not only made that particular murder possible, but made murder in some cases certain.”
(10) The numerous statutes concerning charities, mercy, and humanity constrain the people to imitate Jehovah himself in dealing with the poor and with the unfortunate. Indeed some of the most beautiful and pathetic of these laws relating to treatment of the lower creatures embody principles capable of application in a wider range of higher things. They reprobate all cruelty and the infliction of all unnecessary suffering as hateful to Jehovah, for example: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”; and “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Once in Waco a young man whom I had known when he was a little fellow came to me bringing a letter purporting to be from his father, commending this young man to me and asking me to help him in any way I could. When he next came and asked me to endorse a paper for thirty dollars, I endorsed it. When it matured, I had to pay it. I wrote to the father about it and he replied that his son had forged that letter, and that is was only one case out of many. That son had broken him up. The boy was arrested on a similar case at Corsicana and sent to the penitentiary. When it was suggested that I testify against him, I would not, because of this scripture, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” The only way I could help to convict that boy would be to submit his father’s testimony to prove that he was a forger.
(11) In like manner all laws regulating business, such as weights and measures. Once I called upon a man whose name I will not give, and asked him why, when he bought goods, he weighed on one scale and when he sold goods he sold by another. He said. “They are all right.” I said, “No, sir, you have loaded the one you sell by and whoever buys from you does not get full weight.” All laws touching business, such as weights and measures, the restraints on exacting pledges for debt, the withholding of wages for day laborers which they have fairly earned, the limitations on usury and the like are but expressions of divine mercy and justice and tended to build up an honest and righteous people, not forgetful of mercy.
(12) The social laws concerning marriage, slavery, parental power over children, while far from the highest expression of God’s will, do yet in every particular prohibit many current evils freely practiced in other nations. Our Lord himself explains that on account of their hardness of heart and low order of development imperfect laws were suffered. “The people but recently were a nation of slaves, with much more of the slave spirit remaining. It cannot be denied that even the civil and criminal codes on these points were far superior to the codes of other nations. The sanctity of human life, the sanctity of the home, and the sanctity of the family are marvelously safeguarded in these laws. And wherever this code touched an evil custom, it never approved the evil but limited the power and scope of the evil, as far as the unprepared people were able to bear it.
(13) Restrictions on entering the covenant, Deu 23:1-7 , constitute a paragraph very few people understand. This applied to proselytes from other nations. The body politic must not be corrupted by alien additions that could not be easily assimilated. On that line our own nation is gravely troubled by loose naturalization laws that permit the scum and offscourings of other nations to be absorbed into our national life and so fearfully endanger the perpetuity of free institutions and make our great cities cesspools of iniquity. An orator once prayed, “O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and Europe!” The Pacific Slope seems also praying ,”O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and the Orient!”
(14) The governing Jehovah idea appears in an emphatic way in the paragraph Deu 24:1-11 , where by an offering of a basket of firstfruits the Israelite must confess Jehovah’s absolute ownership over his products and his own unworthy derivation. The oration concludes with his general result: “Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments, etc.”
QUESTIONS
1. What the importance of grouping correlated matters under specific needs and what is a constitution?
2. What the homiletic value of these fifteen chapters?
3. What two things especially noted concerning the second part of Oration Two?
4. Under what three heads does the author group all the material of these fifteen chapters?
5. Under the first head, when was the central place of worship to be established; when, where and by whom actually established; how long continued?
6. How often and at what festivals must the nation assemble at this central place of worship?
7. What bearing has this fact on the tithing question of Deuteronomy?
8. What the marvelous effects of this one fixed place of national worship?
9. Give examples of the violation of this law, and what their particular sin?
10. Under the second head, what cases of violation called for capital punishment?
11. What underlying principle governing the cities is of great importance in our times? Illustrate.
12. What reference to the covenant breaker in the New Testament, and what the threefold sin therein described?
13. Which of these prohibitions are Romanists most guilty of violating?
14. Under the third head (1) What must be the qualifications of all officers? (2) What their several duties? (3) If the case was too hard for them what were they to do? What the provision for Jehovah’s answer? (4) What prescriptions concerning war? (5) How determine civic responsibility in the case of murder where the murderer was unknown? Present day application and illustrate. (6) What laws relating to the poor and to lower animals? (7) What laws regulating business? (8) What social laws? (9) What the restrictions on entering the covenant and the present day application? (10) How does the governing Jehovah idea appear emphatically
15. How does the oration conclude?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Ver. 1. Or hath his privy member cut off. ] As it is a barbarous custom at this day among the Turks, to deprive various Christian children of their privities, supplying the uses of nature with a silver quill. This was first brought in among them by Selymus II, out of jealousy lest his eunuchs were not so chaste as they should have been, in keeping their ladies’ beds. a Such are usually effeminate, and unfit to bear office.
Shall not enter into the congregation,
a Turk. Hist.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 23:1-6
1No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 2No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 3No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, 4because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you. 6You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days.
Deu 23:1 emasculated This English word translated two Hebrew terms:
1. by crushing – BDB 194
2. to wound or bruise – BDB 822, KB 954, Qal PASSIVE PARTICIPLE
This refers to (1) a male’s testicles being removed or (2) the severing of the spermatic cord (possibly by crushing).
or has his male organ cut off This refers to a severed penis (BDB 1050, a place of pouring fluid). This would be another way of describing a eunuch (cf. Mat 19:12). These two damaged males are the first in a series of those who are excluded from attendance at the assemblies of Israel (i.e., events at the tabernacle). Their exclusion is symbolic of the purity and wholeness of God’s people seen as a kingdom of priests (cf. Exo 19:6 and Lev 21:17-23; Lev 22:17-25). Later in the OT many of these excluded ones are included (e.g., Ruth the Moabitess and the eunuch of Isa 56:3-5 and Act 8:26-40).
It is also possible that this practice of damaging a male’s sexual potential was part of Canaanite practices. Many of the seemingly unusual prohibitions in the Mosaic legislation were directed at a total break with Canaanite society and worship practices.
shall enter This VERB (BDB 97, KB 112) is used several times in this chapter:
1. enter, Deu 23:1-2(twice), 3(twice), 8, 11(twice), 20, 24, 25
2. bring in, Deu 23:18
Most usages relate to:
1. people who may not enter (or attend tabernacle events) the congregation of Israel:
a. damaged males
b. illegitimate persons or their descendants
c. Ammonites, Moabites, or their descendants
2. people who may enter:
a. Edomites
b. Egyptians
3. people who must leave the camp of Israel for a period of time:
a. males with nocturnal emissions
b. all Israelites to relieve themselves
the assembly of the LORD The phrase assembly of the LORD is used of the gathered covenant people of YHWH for worship beginning at Mt. Horeb/Sinai:
1. Exo 12:6, the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel
2. Lev 16:17, all the assembly of Israel
3. Num 16:3, all the congregation, the assembly of the LORD
4. Num 20:4, the LORD’s assembly
5. Deu 5:22, all your assembly
6. Deu 9:10; Deu 10:4; Deu 18:16, on the day of assembly
7. Deu 23:1-3; Deu 23:8, assembly of the LORD
8. Deu 31:30, all the assembly of Israel
9. Jos 8:33, the people of Israel
This phrase represents:
1. worshiping Israel
a. Mt. Sinai/Horeb
b. the tabernacle
2. The Jewish Study Bible, p. 418, based on Jdg 20:2, asserts that it refers to a leadership council or governing body (cf. Num 16:3; Num 20:4)
These excluded ones still have the legal rights of resident aliens spelled out in Exo 22:21; Lev 19:9-10; Lev 19:33-34; Lev 23:22; Deu 1:16; Deu 5:14; Deu 27:19.
The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term qahal (BDB 874) as ekklesia, from which we get the English word, church. Jesus and the NT authors chose this term to communicate that the New Covenant people of God are to be identified as an extension of the Old Covenant people of God (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:22-38; Gal 6:16; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6).
Deu 23:2 illegitimate birth This (BDB 561) is defined as either (1) a child conceived out of wedlock; (2) an incident of incest (cf. Lev 18:6-18); or (3) a child of a mixed marriage (Jewish and pagan, cf. Ezr 9:2; Neh 13:23-25; Zec 9:6). The Hebrew word best fits option #2.
Deu 23:2-3 the tenth generation Note the parallel structure in the phrase, shall (not) ever enter in Deu 23:2-3. The number ten is idiomatic for completeness or forever (see Special Topic at Deu 4:40).
SPECIAL TOPIC: SYMBOLIC NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE
Deu 23:3 No Ammonite or Moabite These nations were the result of incest mentioned in Deu 23:2. Some rabbis say that Gen 19:30-38 (nations from Lot’s incestuous relations with his daughters) shows that this applies only to the men, thereby getting around Ruth’s being a Moabite and a progenitor of King David. However, beyond incest, the other specific reasons for their being rejected is spelled out in Deu 23:4-6.
Deu 23:4 Balaam This prophet was not a descendant of Abraham, but knew YHWH, as did Melchizedek and Job, who were also not descendants of Abraham. Balaam’s story is recounted in Numbers 22-24.
Deu 23:5 because the LORD your God loves you This is a recurrent theme in Deuteronomy:
1. Deu 4:37, He loved your fathers
2. Deu 7:7-8, the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers:
3. Deu 7:12-13, He will love you and bless you and multiply you (if obedient)
4. Deu 10:15, Yet on your fathers did the LORD set His affection to love them
5. Deu 33:3, He loves the people(s)
YHWH’s actions are based on His choice, not Israel’s goodness (cf. Deu 7:7-8). He chose Abraham to choose a world (see Special Topic: YHWH’s ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN at Deu 4:6).
Deu 23:6 their peace or their prosperity This may be a reference to (1) treaties or alliances (e.g., Ezr 9:12) or (2) prayers on their behalf (e.g., Jer 14:11).
congregation = assembly.
Chapter 23
In chapter twenty-three, we find those that were restricted from coming into the temple. Eunuchs were forbidden in the temple.
An Ammonite or Moabite was forbidden unto the tenth generation, for their failure to help the children of Israel during their wilderness experiences, and because they hired Balaam to curse them. And you’re not to seek their peace or their prosperity. However an Edomite; being the descendents of Esau: and the Egyptians; because you were a stranger in their land. They may be brought into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation ( Deu 23:3-8 ).
Now, there are certain rules of cleanliness and sanitation that are given to them here that are very practical and I don’t need to read them or rehearse them for you.
And in verse fifteen,
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master to you. There shall be no whores of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite among the sons of Israel. You’re not to bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD for any vow that you want to make unto God: for these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. You’re not to lend upon usury to your brother; that is of money, or victuals, or of anything that is lent upon usury: to a stranger you may lend with usury; but unto your brother you shall not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that you set your hand to do in the land for wherever you goeth. And when you vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it; and if you do not pay your vow it will be a sin to you. That which has gone out of your lips, you shall keep and perform it; the freewill offering, according as you have vowed unto the LORD, and you promised with your mouth. Now, when you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat all of the grapes you want; but you’re not to put any in a container to carry out of the vineyard ( Deu 23:15-24 ).
In other words, you go into a field, you’re allowed to eat all of the grapes that you can hold while you’re in the field, but you can’t carry them out of the field except in your stomach.
When you come into the standing corn of your neighbor, you may pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle to your neighbor’s ( Deu 23:25 )
In other words, what you can carry out with your hand, but you’re not to take a sickle to his standing corn.
“
Under the Mosaic law certain persons were excluded from worship and others from the camp. Any who in any way violated the requirements of personal perfection in physical matters were not to be allowed to stand I’ among the worshipers. Both the actually maimed and such as were the direct issue of sin were excluded. The Moabite and Ammonite were excluded to the tenth generation because of their refusal to help the people of God in the time of their need and their attempt to harm them in the matter of Balaam. The Edomite and Egyptian were to be excluded to the second generation only. In the case of the first, help had not been rendered in time of need; and in that of the second, Israel must never forget benefits received
With his eye ever on the future of the people in the land, Moses proceeded to touch upon various subjects to the end of this chapter and through the following two chapters seemingly without any system. Israel was to be a refuge for the oppressed slaves of other people. Usury among brethren was forbidden. Vows, it was plainly declared, must be kept, but it was also made perfectly clear that there was no necessity for making vows. In the case of need a man might eat in his neighbor’s vineyards or pluck his standing corn, but no man was allowed to carry away from vineyard or cornfield anything for trade or personal enrichment.
19. The Congregation of Jehovah and Its Constitution and Holiness
CHAPTER 23
1. The constitution of the congregation of Jehovah (Deu 23:1-8)
2. The cleanness of the camp in time of war (Deu 23:9-14)
3. Concerning the escaped slave and the harlot (Deu 23:15-18)
4. Usury forbidden (Deu 23:19-20)
5. Concerning vows (Deu 23:21-23)
6. The neighbors vineyard and field (Deu 23:24-25)
The congregation of Israel is called in this chapter the congregation of Jehovah. And because it was the congregation of Jehovah, all that is unclean and which defiles had to be kept out of it. The same principle applies to the New Testament assembly, which is called the Church of God. Only those who are born again and therefore clean have a right to belong to the church.
The following interesting typical meaning of verses 1-8 is a paragraph taken from the Numerical Bible:
First, then, we have the assembly in its refusal of all discordant elements; and here the exclusion of the unsexed male is based on the need of maintaining the integrity of the creature. Mutilation was a reproach to God; and thus the whole spirit of asceticism is condemned and excluded both for Israel and for us today. The word of bastard, one born of corruption, only occurs once beside in Zec 9:6, is explained by the Rabbins, and received by commentators in general as meaning one born of incest or adultery. Typically, one corruptly born is not the mere child of nature; but rather one corruptly introduced among the people of God. Baptismal regeneration, as the ritualist holds it, is such a birth; and the Moabite and the Ammonite following here emphasizes this thought, though it be true that they are not distinctly reprobated for their birth, but for their enmity to the true people of God, and their employment of Balaam to curse. But even thus does the false professor, like an Ammonite or a Moabite, show his birth today. The Edomite is the simple natural man, and for him there is more hope, and the Egyptian is classed with him, though only in the third generation (dead and risen with Christ) could they enter the congregation of the Lord.
Cleanness and purity had to be preserved in Israels camp. They were constantly to remember Jehovah thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp … therefore shall thy camp be holy; that He see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee. All uncleanness and uncleanliness of the body was considered for this reason an evil thing. The Lord gave even such instructions as these, because He wanted His people to be clean and separated unto Himself. And how it behooves us to take heed to all these things. Jehovah is not alone with us, in the midst of His people, but God the Holy Spirit has made our bodies His temples. What! Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom ye have from God, and ye are not your own? For ye were bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body (1Co 6:19-20).
And how beautiful it is that the poor, escaped slave found in the congregation of Jehovah a refuge! He was not to be oppressed. But the Israelites, who practised the abominable things of the flesh under a religious garb (verse 17) were an abomination unto the Lord.
Verses 24 and 25 prove that Jehovah is the owner of the land and He invited the hungry one to satisfy his hunger, to be His guest, so to speak. But the right of the tenant of the land was also respected. See on plucking the ears of corn (Mat 12:1; Luk 6:1).
wounded: Lev 21:17-21, Lev 22:22-24, Gal 3:28
shall not enter: It is evident that his law was not meant to exclude such Israelites either from the common benefits of civil society, or any essential religious advantages; but merely to lay them under a disgraceful distinction. This would tend to discourage parents from thus treating their children; a practice which was exceedingly common in those ages and countries. To this they were induced by the custom which prevailed, of employing such in the houses of the great and the courts of princes; so that they often rose to the highest posts of honour and authority. Some expositors therefore consider the phrase, “shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord,” as meaning, that they should be incapable of bearing any office in that government which was placed over the people of God, who must thus enter a protest against this custom, and deliver selfish parents from this temptation. Deu 23:2, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:8, Neh 13:1-3, Isa 56:3, Isa 56:4, Lam 1:10
Reciprocal: Lev 21:20 – or hath Lev 22:24 – broken
MORE REGULATIONS
PUBLIC PRIVILEGES (Deu 23:1-9)
The privileges referred to here are doubtless honors in the state and perhaps, in the case of foreigners, incorporation with Israel by marriage. Eunuchs and bastards were denied these privileges (Deu 23:1-2), and also members of what Gentile nations (Deu 23:3)? What caused the latter prohibition (Deu 23:4-6)? Such passages as Neh 13:1; Rth 4:10; and 2Ki 10:2 show that there were some exceptions to this prohibition, although it may be that it excluded males, but not females.
What other two nations were exempt from this rule, and on what grounds (Deu 23:7-8)?
BODILY UNCLEANNESS AND OTHER DETAILS (Deu 23:10-25)
Deu 23:13 should be translated as in the Revised Version, thou shalt have a paddle [or shovel] among they weapons, which explains the meaning of the direction. Think of it in the light of the following verse, and remember the words of Wesley, that cleanliness is next to godliness. There is a sense indeed, in which it is godliness, and the man who honors his Creator and Redeemer will see to it that himself and his surroundings are ever in a wholesome and sanitary condition. These directions have reference to camp life when engaged in war (Deu 23:9), but how much more obligatory in ordinary living.
Deu 23:15-16 refer to slaves who run away from tyrannical masters, or for deliverance from heathenism, and they afforded a ground for the action of Northern abolitionists who aided runaway slaves prior to our civil war.
As to Deu 23:19-20, the Israelites lived in a simple state of society, and were encouraged to lend to each other without hope of gain. But the case was different with foreigners, who, engaged in trade and commerce, borrowed to enlarge their capital, and might reasonably be expected to pay interest on loans. Besides, the distinction was conducive to keeping the Israelites separate from the rest of the world.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (Deu 24:1-5)
Divorce seems to have become known to the Hebrews in Egypt, and was tolerated by the Mosaic laws for the reason indicated in Mat 19:3-9. But it was restricted by two conditions. What was the first (Deu 24:1)? And the second (Deu 24:4)? Because of increasing laxity in these matters today, we ought to familiarize ourselves with these two passages of Scripture, and especially the words of Christ.
CONSIDERATION FOR THE POOR (Deu 24:6-22)
Why was a creditor not at liberty to take either the mill (RV), or the upper millstone as a pledge for debt (Deu 24:6)? Corn was ground every morning for that days consumption, and if either were taken it would be depriving a man of his necessary provision.
According to Deu 24:10-11, how were a borrowers feelings to be considered? Deu 24:12-13 are explained by the fact that the cloak of a poor man was commonly all the covering he had to wrap himself in when he retired for the night.
What beneficent provision for the poor is made in Deu 24:19-22, and why?
JUSTICE IN LAW AND IN TRADE (Deuteronomy 25)
The bastinado was common to Egypt, but God through Moses here introduces two important restrictions (Deu 25:1-3):
First, the punishment should be inflicted in presence of the judge, instead of in private by some heartless official.
Second, the maximum amount should be forty stripes, instead of the arbitrary will of the magistrate. The Egyptian, like Turkish and Chinese rulers, often applied the stick till they caused death or lameness for life. In later times, when the Jews were exceedingly scrupulous in adhering to the letter of the law, and, for fear of miscalculation, were desirous of keeping within the prescribed limit, the scourge was formed of three cords, terminating in leathern thongs, and thirteen strokes of this counted thirty- nine (2Co 11:24).
The usage concerning a childless widow existed before this time (Genesis 38), but the law now made it obligatory on younger brothers or the nearest kinsman to marry the widow (Rth 4:4; Mat 22:25). This not only perpetuated the name but also preserved the property in the family and tribe.
The reference to Amaleks deed (Deu 25:17-19) is not mentioned in Exodus 17, where the battle is recorded, but as it was a daring defiance of God, this command against them went forth. (See 1 Samuel 15.)
THE LAWS OF TITHING (Deuteronomy 26)
The regulations here, like most of the foregoing, were for observance, not in the wilderness, but in Canaan after they should enter it (Deu 26:1). What were they then to do? Where were they to go (Deu 26:2)? What were they to say (Deu 26:3)? After the priests acceptance of the basket and its contents, what was the next feature in this ritual (Deu 26:5-10)? In what spirit should this be done (Deu 26:11)?
This is not so much a question of tithing, (giving one-tenth) as a general acknowledgment that all belongs to God, represented by the basket of first fruits and the confession and thanksgiving.
The actual tithing is referred to in the verses following (Deu 26:12-15). There were really two tithings. The first was appropriated to the Levites (Num 18:21); and the second, the tenth of what remained, was brought to Jerusalem, in kind or in money value. In the latter case, the money was used to purchase materials for the offerings and their thanksgiving feast (Deu 14:22-23). This was done for two years together, but on the third year (Deu 14:28-29) the thanksgiving was to be eaten at home and distribution to be made among the poor.
QUESTIONS
1. Name the six leading subjects of this lesson.
2. What two restrictions on divorce are given?
3. How would you explain 24:12-13?
4. What light can you throw on 2Co 11:24?
5. Who should marry a childless widow, and why?
Deu 23:1-2. He that is wounded It is generally agreed that Moses is here speaking of eunuchs. Shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord The meaning is, not that they should be debarred from the public worship of the true God, as the phrase sometimes signifies, for that privilege was granted to all nations indiscriminately, provided they renounced idolatry, Exo 12:48; Lev 22:18; Num 9:14. But the sense seems to be, that such a one should not be deemed an Israelite, nor have his name entered in the public register; and especially that he should not be admitted to honours or offices, either in the church or commonwealth of Israel, or be allowed to be one of the society of elders, or rulers of the people, or to sit in council with them. The same privilege was denied to those here termed bastards, under which name the Jews comprehended not only those begotten in simple fornication, but also the offspring of all such incestuous marriages, as are prohibited Leviticus 18. One chief reason of this law, no doubt, was, to deter people from such unlawful connections as would both offend God, and leave an indelible blot upon their posterity.
Deu 23:1. Shall not enter the congregation. Eunuchs might worship there, as appears from the viiith of Acts; but they could not hold any office. In regard to devotion, God has promised the pious Eunuch a place in his house, and a name better than that of sons and of daughters. Isa 56:5.
Deu 23:3. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation. The crime of Baal-peor was a very awful breach; and to this day we find certain crimes of ancestors deeply to affect posterity. Yet they often became proselytes. Judith 14. A woman proselyted to Judaism might marry a Jew, as appears from the case of Ruth, and of others.
Deu 23:15. The servant escaped from his master. The Jews restrict this precept to the slaves of neighbouring nations; but it obviously tends to discourage slavery, and it exempts a slave from blame in case of making his escape.
Deu 23:17. No whoreno sodomite. These must be put to death. In the apostate ages of Judea, we find characters of this kind very numerous, which hastened the destruction of the country. If a woman cannot take care of herself, the magistrate ought to do it for her till she can find sureties. It is far cheaper for a nation to keep them in a house of industry, than to allow them to spread their nets in the streets. The Hebrew word rendered whore, signifies devoted; as the Babylonian women brought their hire to Venus. Herodotus, Clio.The LXX read, no whoremonger, which seems correct, being joined with the sodomite.
Deu 23:19. Usury. See Lev 25:37.
Deu 23:25. Thou mayest pluck the ears. This was a humane law towards the afflicted and aged poor; but in our country children should be early apprized, that the like liberties may subject them to penalties.
REFLECTIONS.
If fornicators, idolaters, and all the unclean were thus excluded from the camp of Israel, how much more should all such wicked people be expelled from the church of God. We should never degrade the divine glory, by accounting christian society less holy than the commonwealth of Israel. No man who has committed any known and studied wickedness, is fit to enter the Lords house, till he has wept for his sins. The church has most assuredly a right to expel from her communion every one who shall relapse into gross and scandalous sins, and to suspend those who shall be guilty of habitual negligence, and of associating improperly with the carnal world.
The kindness here enjoined to be showed to the Egyptians, notwithstanding the subsequent oppression; and to the Edomites, being the descendants of Esau, in memory of former kindness, shows that gratitude is of everlasting obligation; and happy is the constitution and government of a nation, when strangers prefer it to their native land. Happy also is England to have been so long the asylum of strangers, and the refuge of the distressed. May thy prosperity, oh highly favoured land, be lasting as the heavens and the earth.
The paddle which could easily be unscrewed from the spear, is no small indication of the cleanliness and decency preserved in the camp of Israel; for God was among the people; and we may consequently infer how clean and decent every christian should be in his house, garden, and dress. Our bodies, our families, and our dwellings are the Lords: and outward decencies should be but emblems of the greater purity of our desires, and the sincerity of our hearts.
The abhorrence which is testified against bringing the hire of a prostitute into the sanctuary of God, shows that all such characters are under his wrath and indignation; nor can they approach the extremity of his courts, unless it be with the deepest repentance. A wicked man who has the effrontery to appear among the saints with an undaunted countenance, is adding hypocrisy to crime, and preparing for himself the greater condemnation. When a man is not sincere in his approaches to God, he becomes the worst character of humankind.
Deuteronomy 22 – 25
The portion of our book on which we now enter, though not calling for elaborate exposition, yet teaches us two very important practical lessons In the first place, many of the institutions and ordinances here set forth prove and illustrate, in a most striking way, the terrible depravity of the human heart. They show us, with unmistakable distinctness, what man is capable of doing, if left to himself. We must ever remember, as we read some of the paragraphs of this section of Deuteronomy, that God the Holy Ghost has indicted them. We, in our fancied wisdom, may feel disposed to ask why such passages were ever penned? Can it be possible that they are actually inspired by the Holy Ghost? and of what possible value can they be to us? If they were written for our learning, then what are we to learn from them?
Our reply to all these questions is, at once, simple and direct; and it is this, the very passages which we might least expect to and on the page of inspiration teach us, in their own peculiar way, the moral material of which we are made, and the moral depths into which we are capable of plunging. And is not this of great moment? Is it not well to have a faithful mirror held up before our eyes in which we may see every moral trait, feature and lineament perfectly reflected? Unquestionably. We hear a great deal about the dignity of human nature, and very many find it exceedingly hard to admit that they are really capable of committing some of the sins prohibited in the section before us, and in other portions of the divine Volume. But we may rest assured that when God commands us not to commit this or that particular sin, we are verily capable of committing it. This is beyond all question. Divine wisdom would never erect a dam if there was not a current to be resisted. There would be no necessity to tell an angel not to steal; but man has theft in his nature, and hence the command applies to him. And just so in reference to every other prohibited thing; the prohibition proves the tendency – proves it beyond all question. We must either admit this or imply the positive blasphemy that God has spoken in vain.
But then it may be said; and is said by many, that while some very terrible samples of fallen humanity are capable of committing some of the abominable sins prohibited in scripture, yet all are not so. This is a most thorough mistake. Hear what the Holy Ghost says, in the seventeenth chapter of the prophet Jeremiah. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” Whose heart is he speaking of? Is it the heart of some atrocious criminal, or of some untutored savage? Nay; it is the human heart, the heart of the writer and of the reader of these lines.
Hear also what our Lord Jesus Christ says on this subject. “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Out of what heart? Is it the heart of some hideously depraved and abominable wretch wholly unfit to appear in decent society? Nay; it is out of the human heart the heart of the writer and of the reader of these lines.
Let us never forget this; it is a wholesome truth for every one of us. We all need to bear in mind that if God were to withdraw His sustaining grace, for one moment, there is no depth of iniquity into which we are not capable of plunging; indeed, we may add – and we do it with deep thankfulness it is His own gracious hand that preserves us, each moment, from becoming a complete wreck, in every way, physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and in our circumstances. May we keep this ever in the remembrance of the thoughts of our hearts, so that we may walk humbly and watchfully, and lean upon that arm which alone can sustain and preserve us!
But, we have said, there is another valuable lesson furnished by this section of our book which now lies open before us. It teaches us, in a manner peculiar to itself, the marvellous way in which God provided for everything connected with His people. Nothing escaped His gracious notice; nothing was too trivial for His tender care. No mother could be more careful of the habits and manners of her little child, than the Almighty Creator and moral Governor of the universe was of the most minute details connected with the daily history of His people. By day and by night, waking and sleeping at home and abroad, He looked after them. Their clothing, their food, their manners and ways toward one another, how they were to build their houses, how they were to plough and sow their ground, how they were to carry themselves in the deepest privacy of their personal life – all was attended to and provided for in a manner that fills us with wonder, love and praise. We may here see, in a most striking way, that there is nothing too small for our God to take notice of when His people are concerned. He takes a loving, tender, fatherly interest in their most minute concerns. We are amazed to find the Most High God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, the Sustainer of the vast universe, condescending to legislate about the matter of a bird’s nest; and yet why should we be amazed when we know that it is just the same to Him to provide for a sparrow as to feed a thousand millions of people daily?
But there was one grand fact which was ever to be kept prominently before each member of the congregation of Israel, namely, the divine presence in their midst. This fact was to govern their most private habits, and give character to all their ways. “The Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up, thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.” (Deut. 23: 14.)
What a precious privilege to have Jehovah walking in their midst! What a motive for purity of conduct, and refined delicacy in their persons and domestic habits! If He was in their midst to secure victory over their enemies, He was also there to demand holiness of life. They were never, for one moment, to forget the august Person who walked up and down in their midst. Would the thought of this be irksome to any? Only to such as did not love holiness, purity and moral order. Every true Israelite would delight in the thought of having One dwelling in their midst who could not endure ought that was unholy, unseemly or impure.
The Christian reader will be at no loss to seize the moral force and application of this holy principle. It is our privilege to have God the Spirit dwelling in us, individually and collectively. Thus we read, in 1 Corinthians 6: 19, “What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” This is individual. Each believer is a temple of the Holy Ghost, and this most glorious and precious truth is the ground of the exhortation given in Ephesians 4: 30, “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.”
How very important to keep this ever in the remembrance of the thoughts of our hearts! What a mighty moral motive for the diligent cultivation of purity of heart, and holiness of life! When tempted to indulge in any wrong current of thought or feeling, any unworthy manner of speech, any unseemly line of conduct, what a powerful corrective would be found in the realisation of the blessed fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in our body as in His temple! If only we could keep this ever before us it would preserve us from many a wandering thought, many an unguarded and foolish utterance, many an unbecoming act.
But, not only does the Holy Spirit dwell in each individual believer, He also dwells in the church collectively. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Cor. 3: 16.) It is upon this fact that the apostle grounds his exhortation in 1 Thess 5: 19 “Quench not the Spirit.” How divinely perfect is scripture! How blessedly it hangs together! The Holy Ghost dwells in us individually; hence we are not to grieve Him. He dwells in the assembly, hence we are not to quench Him, but give Him His right place, and allow full scope for His blessed operations. May these great practical truths find a deep place in our hearts, and exerts more powerful influence over our ways both in private life and in the public assembly!
We shall now proceed to quote a few passages from the section of our book which now lies open before us strikingly illustrative of the wisdom, goodness, tenderness, holiness and righteousness which marked all the dealings of God with His people of old. Take, for example, the very opening paragraph. “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again. In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found shalt thou do likewise; thou mayest not hide thyself. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again” (Deut. 22: 1-4)
Here the two lessons of which we have spoken are, very distinctly, presented. What a deeply humbling picture of the human heart have we in that one sentence, “Thou mayest not hide thyself!” We are capable of the base and detestable selfishness of hiding ourselves from our brother’s claims upon our sympathy and succour – of shirking the holy duty of looking after his interests – of pretending not to see his real need of our aid. Such is man! Such is the writer!
But oh! how blessedly the character of our God shines out in this passage! The brother’s ox, or his sheep, or his ass was not – to use a modern phrase – to be thrust into pound, for trespass; it was to be brought home, cared for, and restored, safe and sound, to the owner without charge for damage. And so with the raiment. How lovely is all this! How it breathes upon us the very air of the divine presence, the fragrant atmosphere of divine goodness, tenderness and thoughtful love! What a high and holy privilege for any people to have their conduct governed and their character formed by such exquisite statutes and judgements!
Again, take the following passage so beautifully illustrative of divine thoughtfulness: “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” The Lord would have His people thoughtful and considerate of others; and hence, in building their houses, they were not merely to think of themselves, and their convenience, but also of others and their safety.
Cannot Christians learn something from this? How prone we are to think only of ourselves, our own interests, our own comfort and convenience! How rarely it happens that, in the building or furnishing of our houses, we bestow a thought upon other people! We build and furnish for ourselves; alas! self is too much our object and motive spring in all our undertakings; nor can it be otherwise unless the heart be kept under the governing power of those motives and objects which belong to Christianity. We must live in the pure and heavenly atmosphere of the new creation, in order to get above and beyond the base selfishness which characterizes fallen humanity. Every unconverted man woman and child on the face of the earth is governed simply by self, in some shape or another. Self is the centre, the object, the motive-spring of every action.
True, some are more amiable, more affectionate, more benevolent, more unselfish, more disinterested, more agreeable than others; but it is utterly impossible that “the natural man” can be governed by spiritual motives, or an earthly man be animated by heavenly objects. Alas! We have to confess, with shame and sorrow, that we who profess to be heavenly and spiritual are so prone to live for ourselves, to seek our own things, to maintain our own interests, to consult our own ease and convenience. We are all alive and on the alert when self, in any shape or form, is concerned.
All this is most sad and deeply humbling. It really ought not to be, and it would not be if we were looking more simply and earnestly to Christ as our great Exemplar and model in all things. Earnest and constant occupation of heart with Christ is the true secret of all practical Christianity. It is not rules and regulations that will ever make us Christ-like in our spirit, manner and ways. We must drink into His spirit, walk in His footsteps, dwell more profoundly upon His moral glories, and then we shall, of blessed necessity, be conformed to His image. “We all with open face beholding as in a glass [or mirror katoptrizomenoi.] the glory, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the, Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Cor. 3.)
We must now ask the reader to turn, for a moment, to the following very important practical instructions – full of suggestive power for all Christian workers “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds, lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled.” (Deut. 22: 9.)
What a weighty principle is here! Do we really understand it? Do we see its true spiritual application? It is to be feared there is a terrible amount of “mingled seed” used in the so-called spiritual husbandry of the present day. How much of “philosophy and vain deceit.,” how much of “science falsely so called,” how much of “the rudiments of the world” do we find mixed up in the teaching and preaching throughout the length and breadth of the professing church! How little of the pure, unadulterated seed of the word of God, the “incorruptible seed” of the precious gospel of Christ, is scattered broadcast over the field of Christendom, in this our day! How few, comparatively, are content to confine themselves within the covers of the Bible for the material of their ministry! Those who are, by the grace of God faithful enough to do so, are looked upon as men of one idea, men of the old school, narrow and behind the times.
Well, we can only say, with a full and glowing heart, God bless the men of one idea, men of the precious old school of apostolic preaching! Most heartily do we congratulate them on their blessed narrowness, and their being behind these dark and infidel times. We are fully aware of what we expose ourselves to in thus writing; but this does not move us. We are persuaded that every true servant of Christ must be a man of one idea, and that idea is Christ; he must belong to the very oldest school, the school of Christ; he must be as narrow as the truth of God; and he must, with stern decision, refuse to move one hair’s breadth in the direction of this infidel age. We cannot shake off the conviction that the effort on the part of the preachers and teachers of Christendom to keep abreast of the literature of the day must, to a very large extent, account for the rapid advance of rationalism and infidelity. They have got away from the holy scriptures, and sought to adorn their ministry by the resources of philosophy, science and literature. They have catered more for the intellect than for the heart and conscience. The pure and precious doctrines of holy scripture, the sincere milk of the word, the gospel of the grace of God and of the glory of Christ, were found insufficient to attract and keep together large congregations. As Israel of old despised the manna, got tired of it, and pronounced it light food, so the professing church grew weary of the pure doctrines of that glorious Christianity unfolded in the pages of the New Testament, and sighed for something to gratify the intellect, and feed the imagination. The doctrines of the cross, in which the blessed apostle gloried, have lost their charm for the professing church, and any who would be faithful enough to adhere and confine themselves in their ministry to those doctrines might abandon all thought of popularity.
But let all the true and faithful ministers of Christ, all true workers in His vineyard apply their hearts to the spiritual principle set forth in Deuteronomy 22: 9; let them, with unflinching decision, refuse to make use of “divers seeds” in their spiritual husbandry; let them confine themselves in their ministry to “the form of sound words,” and ever seek “rightly to divide the word of truth,” that so: they may not be ashamed of their work, but receive a full reward in that day when every man’s work shall be tried of what sort it is. We may depend upon it, the word of God – the pure seed – is the only proper material for the spiritual workman to use. We do not despise learning; far from it, we consider it most valuable in its right place. The facts of science, too, and the resources of sound philosophy may all be turned to profitable account in unfolding and illustrating the truth of holy scripture. We find the blessed Master Himself and His inspired apostles making use of the facts of history and of nature in their public teaching; and who in his sober senses, would think of calling in question the value and importance of a competent knowledge of the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, in the private study and public exposition of the word of God?
But admitting all this, as we most fully do, it leaves wholly untouched the great practical principle before us-a principle to which all the Lord’s people and His servants are bound to adhere, namely, that the Holy Ghost is the only power, and holy scripture the only material for all true ministry in the gospel and the church of God. If this were more fully understood and faithfully acted upon, we should witness a very different condition of things throughout the length and breadth of the vineyard of Christ.
Here, however, we must close this section. We have elsewhere sought to handle the subject of “The Unequal Yoke,” and shall not therefore dwell upon it here.* The Israelite was not to plow with an ox and an ass together; neither was he to wear a, garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen. The spiritual application of both these things is as simple as it is important. The Christian is not to link himself with an unbeliever, for any object whatsoever, be it domestic, religious, philanthropic, or commercial, neither must he allow himself to be governed by mixed principles. His character must be formed and his conduct ruled by the pure and lofty principles of the word of God. Thus may it be with all who profess and call themselves Christians.
{*See a pamphlet entitled, “The Unequal Yoke.”}
Deu 23:1-8. Classes to be refused admission into the religious community.
Deu 23:1. Here two, but in Lev 22:24 two additional methods of making eunuchs are mentioned. Such mutilations were required in Syrian and other religions, and for that reason disqualify for Yahwehs Church; but see Isa 56:4 f.
Deu 23:2. bastard: the offspring of an incestuous union.the assembly of the Lord (Yahweh): Ps designation of Israel as a religious community. The expression belongs almost wholly to post-exilic Judaism, whence and for other (unconvincing) reasons Bertholet dates Deu 23:1-8 in the time of Nehemiah.
Deu 23:3 f. The exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites follows from Deu 23:2 (see Gen 19:30 f), but the only reason given here is a historical one and the history seems to contradict Deu 2:29 as regards the Moabites, though Driver denies this.
Deu 23:4 b. See Num 22:5 ff.
Deu 23:5. See Num 11:25; Num 24:10.
Deu 23:6. They are to do them no good, but neither are they commanded to do them harm. This verse is in conflict with the general spirit of D (see Deu 15:12-18*).peace: better, wellbeing. The Heb. means, completeness, cf. health (derived from whole), nothing lacking (see Ezr 9:12, Jer 29:7). Deu 23:3 f. is cited and the principle taught followed in Neh 13:1 ff. (see notes in Cent.B).
Deu 23:7. brother: better kinsman (Deu 2:4*).
Deu 23:8. third generation: i.e. of such Edomites and Egyptians as settled in Canaan and embraced Yahwism.
NECESSARY EXCLUSIONS
(vs.1-8)
A man who was emasculated in any way could not be recognized as one of Israel’s congregation (v.1). Such mutilation deprives one of his proper masculinity. The Lord makes a clear distinction between men and women, and in the present day each has distinct functions in the assembly of God. So that the spiritual lesson for us is that we fully assume the responsibilities of our God-given place. Of course in the Church of God today one’s physical deformities make no difference to his spiritual blessings.
One of illegitimate birth was to be excluded from the congregation of Israel, and this would extend to the tenth generation of his descendants (v.2). Again, this cannot be literally applied today, but the case is typical of one who is not actually born of God, but born of corruption. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (Joh 3:6), and has no place in the Church of God.
Ammonites and Moabites were placed in the same category, with no reception of them even to the tenth generation (v.3). They had been opposers of Israel from the time Israel came out of Egypt, Moab even hiring Balaam to curse Israel (v.4). Ammon (meaning “peoplish”), whose king was called “Nahash” (meaning “serpent”) is a picture of satanically inspired religion and its cunning false doctrines, such as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, etc. As to Moab: “Moab had been at ease from his youth; he has settled on his dregs, and had not been emptied from vessel to vessel, nor has he gone into captivity. Therefore his taste remained in him and his scent has not changed” (Jer 48:2). Thus, Moab pictures the lazy, self-pleasing religion that has no spiritual exercise whatever, but indulges every selfish desire of the flesh. Neither of these have any place in the Christian testimony, and must be refused.
But God was above the opposition of Ammon and Moab, turning their curses into blessing for Israel (v.5), just as today He blesses His Church in spite of the opposition of false religion. Yet Israel was not to seek the peace or prosperity of these two nations forever (v.6). So believers today must refuse to encourage in any way the evils of such religious deception as is seen in many denominations.
There was a difference in regard to an Edomite, and also an Egyptian (vs.7-8). They were to be treated with more consideration, and after the third generation could be assimilated into Israel, the number three speaking of the judgment of the flesh in death and resurrection. For Edom pictures man in the flesh, not the false deception of Satan as is seen in Ammon and Moab, but simply man without God. How much easier are these to deal with than those who have embraced false religion! Egypt is similar to Edom in this, that it is typical of the world in its independence of God, and Israel had once been in captivity to them, as we all have been at one time suffering bondage in a world away from God.
MAINTAINING A CLEAN CAMP
(vs.9-14)
Israel’s camp was to be kept clean. Even if some occurrence took place in the night by which a person became unclean, he was to go outside the camp until he was cleansed by the washing of water in the evening (vs.10-11). Also, having no plumbing facilities, a place was to be provided outside the camp where people could go to dispose of their body wastes. They must bring with them some implement with which to cover the waste with earth afterwards (vs.12-13). Thus we are reminded that whatever spiritual good there may be in our lives, there are excesses that must be disposed of. See Php 3:8. for God was in the camp, and in His presence there is no place for uncleanness.
MISCELLANEOUS LAWS
(vs.15-25)
While the law did not forbid slavery, and even in Christianity slaves are told to obey their masters (Eph 6:5), yet it was not God’s plan that people should be in bondage to one another; and if a slave escaped from his master, coming to an Israelite town, he was not to be delivered back to his master, but allowed to remain within the shelter of the town to which he had come, and given liberty to chose the place he desired to live within their gates (vs.15-16).
Women in Israel were forbidden to be prostitutes and men also forbidden to practice sodomy or prostitution (v.17). Such things were practice in the religious rituals of the nations God was judging in Canaan, for people like to justify their evil practices by making them appear religious. But this made the practice more abominable to God, for it is attaching His name to evil.
Any gains a woman made through prostitution she must not dare to bring as an offering to God (v.18). It would be a gross insult. The same was true as to the price of a dog. Dogs, as unclean animals, are typical of Gentiles in an unclean state of unbelief. What is connected with uncleanness is offensive to God. It was reported not long ago that an owner of a dog racing track gave one million dollars to a so-called television evangelist. Gains gotten by such gambling practices should be absolutely refused by one who does the Lord’s work, for God can certainly not accept such things.
In lending money or goods to a brother Israelite, the Jews were not allowed to charge interest (v.19). Christians too should consider it wise not to charge interest to another Christian or to a close relative if lending to them because of an occasion of need. Business practices such as mortgages are of a different character, of course, but the Lord takes account of the unselfish treatment we show toward others, and will repay this in His own way (v.20).
If one made a vow to the Lord he must pay it all at the appointed time (v.21), for negligence in this was sin. How much better not to vow at all than to make a promise and not keep it! This law should have by itself kept Israel from making questionable vows. However, the Lord Jesus, in speaking of this law, says, “But I say to you, do not swear at all” (Mat 5:33-34). Man in the flesh is proven by Old Testament history to be untrustworthy, and therefore in the New Testament we are warned against making promises or even announcing what we are going to do in the future, which includes the very near future (Jam 4:13-16). For even though we intend to act on our promise, we may find ourselves unable to. What a contrast is seen in God’s promises, He who not only promised but “confirmed it by an oath” (Heb 6:17), for His promise and His oath are absolute: they cannot be broken.
Last in this section the grace of God and the government of God are seen in beautiful balance (vs.24-25). If passing through another person’s vineyard, Israelites were permitted to eat all the grapes they desired. Thus God showed compassion in regard to man’s present hunger. But His righteous government firmly forbid carrying any away in a container. The same was true in a field of grain. They could pick heads of grain to eat, but could not cut the grain down, which would of course indicate their intention of taking it away.
23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, {a} shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
(a) Either to bear office, or to marry a wife.
Public worship 23:1-8
In the preceding chapter Moses explained the proper types of marital union. In this chapter he set forth the proper types of union of individuals with the covenant community.
This section of verses (Deu 23:1-8) deals with people who were not born in Israel but wished to worship with full members of the nation.
"The ’assembly’ (qahal) refers here to the formal gathering of the Lord’s people as a community at festival occasions and other times of public worship and not to the nation of Israel as such. This is clear from the occurrence of the verb ’enter’ (bo’) throughout the passage (Deu 23:1-3; Deu 23:8), a verb that suggests participation with the assembly and not initial introduction or conversion to it." [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, p. 307. Cf. Craigie, The Book . . ., p. 296; and Kalland, p. 140.]
God apparently excluded eunuchs (Deu 23:1) because lack of wholeness symbolized lack of holiness. Likewise God excluded an illegitimate child-probably one born out of incest, adultery, or the union of an Israelite and a Canaanite (Deu 23:2; cf. Zec 9:6). [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:413-14.] This restriction would have discouraged Israelites from marrying Canaanites since their children could not participate in public worship, and public worship events were the most important ones in Israel. The illegitimate child category may have included the offspring of Canaanite temple prostitutes. [Note: Payne, p. 130.] "To the tenth generation" (Deu 23:2-3) means forever. [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 3:414.]
"One was an Israelite and therefore a member of the covenant community by birth. Only by some act of his own will could he lose that privilege. On the other hand, Israelite birth did not automatically qualify one for full participation in community worship, the very point of Deu 23:1-2." [Note: Merrill, Deuteronomy, p. 308.]
The Israelites were to admit no Ammonite or Moabite into public worship (Deu 23:3-6). The Ammonites and Moabites were descendants of Lot through his incestuous relationship with his daughters ("illegitimate birth," Deu 23:2; cf. Gen 19:30-38). Evidently Ammonites, Moabites, and any other people could become members of the nation of Israel by becoming proselytes to Yahwism (cf. Deu 2:9; Deu 2:19; Exo 12:38; Rth 4:10; 1Sa 22:3-4). Evidently they were excluded, however, from the public worship of Israel.
The main reason for the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites was the extreme hostility that these nations demonstrated toward Israel when Israel was approaching the Promised Land. Evidently Ammon participated with Moab in resisting Israel’s passage, in seeking to curse the Israelites with Balaam’s assistance, and or in corrupting the Israelites through sacred prostitution (Numbers 22-25). God treated the Edomites and Egyptians less severely. The great-grandchildren of people from these nations could become worshippers with the Israelites (Deu 23:7-8). The rationale again lay in Israel’s relationships to these two nations in her history. Even though not all these people could participate in Israel’s public worship, they could, of course, trust in Israel’s God and experience personal salvation. Many individuals who were not even members of the covenant community enjoyed personal salvation (e.g., Melchizedek, Job, the widow of Zarephath, the "God-fearers" among the Gentiles in Jesus’ day, et al.).
"Disbarment from the assembly was not synonymous with exclusion from the covenant community itself as the one example of Ruth the Moabite makes clear. . . . There can be no doubt that Ruth was welcomed among the people of the Lord as one of their own though presumably never with access to the assembly." [Note: Ibid., p. 309.]
Another possibility is that the Israelites did not enforce this law and that she did participate in public worship. From these verses we learn that God’s people should be careful about whom they allow to worship with themselves and admit to full privileges among themselves (cf. Rom 16:17-18).
LAWS OF PURITY (CHASTITY AND MARRIAGE)
IN dealing with the ten commandments it has been already shown that, though these great statements of religious and moral truth were to some extent inadequate as expressions of the highest life, they yet contained the living germs of all that has followed. But we cannot suppose that the reality of Israelite life from the first corresponded with them. They contained much that only the experience and teaching of ages could fully bring to light; therefore we cannot expect that the actual laws in regard to the relations of the sexes and the virtue of chastity should stand upon the same high level as the Decalogue. The former represent the reality, this the ultimate ideal of Israelite law on these subjects. But neither is unimportant in forming an estimate of the value of the revelation given to Israel, and of the moral condition of early Israel itself, nor can either be justly viewed altogether alone. The actual law at any moment in the history of Israel must be regarded as inspired and up-borne by the ideal set forth in the ten commandments. But it must, at the same time, be a very incomplete realization of these, and its various stages will be best regarded as installments of advance towards that comparative perfection.
In regard to the relations of the sexes and the virtue of purity this must be peculiarly the case. For though chastity has been safeguarded by almost all nations up to a certain low point, it has never been really cherished by any naturalistic system. Nor has it ever been favored by mere humanism. Consequently there is no point of morals in regard to which man has more conspicuously failed to work out the merely animal impulse from his nature than in this. And yet, for all the higher ends of life, as well as for the prosperity and vigor of mankind, purity in the sexual relations is entirely vital. One great cause of the decay of nations, nay, even of civilizations, has been the abandonment of this virtue. This was the main cause of the destruction of the Canaanites. It may even be said to have been the cause of the wreck of the whole ancient world. We should consequently measure what the Mosaic influence did for purity of life, not by comparing early Israelite laws with what has been accomplished by Christianity, but with the condition of the Semitic peoples surrounding Israel, in and after the Mosaic times.
What that was we know. Their religions, far from discouraging sexual immorality, made it a part of their holiest rites. Both men and women gave themselves up to natural and unnatural lusts, in honor of their gods. To the north, and south, and east, and west of Israel these practices prevailed, and as a natural result the moral fabric of these nations life fell into utter ruin. In private life adultery, and the still more degrading sin of Sodom were common. The man had a right to indiscriminate divorce and remarriage, and marriage connections now reckoned incestuous, such as those between brother and sister, were entirely approved. In all these points Israel as a nation was without reproach. The higher teaching this people had received in respect to the character of God, and it may be some reminiscence of Egyptian custom, which was in some respects purer than that of the Semitic peoples, raised them to a higher level. Yet in the main the early Israelite view of women was fundamentally the uncivilized one.
But at all periods of Israelite history, even the earliest, women had asserted their personality. In the eye of the law they might be the chattels of their male relatives, but as a fact they were dealt with as persons, with many personal rights. They had no independent position in the community, it is true. They could take no part in a festival so important as the Passover, nor were they free to make vows without the consent of their husbands. In other ways also social restraints were laid upon them. Nevertheless their position in early Israel was much higher than it is in the East today, and their liberty was in no wise unreasonably abridged. In Davids day women could appear in public to converse with men without scandal (Cf. 1Sa 25:18 ff.; 2Sa 14:1 ff.). They also took part in religious festivals and processions, giving, life to them by beating their timbrels, by singing, and by dancing (Cf. Exo 15:1-27 and 1Sa 18:6 f.). They could be present also at all ordinary sacrifices and at sacrificial feasts; and, as we see in the case of Deborah and others, they could occupy a high, almost a supreme, position as prophetesses. In the main, too, the relations between husband and wife were loving and respectful, and in Israels best days, when the people still remained landed yeomanry, the wife, by her industry within the house, supplemented and completed her husbands labor in the fields. The Israelite woman was consequently a very important person in the community whatever her status in law might be; and if she had not the full rights which are now granted to her sex in Western and Christian lands, her position was for the times a noble and independent one. That all this was so was largely due to the improvements which Mosaism wrought on the basis of that ancient Semitic custom which we sketched at the beginning of this chapter, and with which it seems natural to suppose the Israelite tribes had also begun.
Bearing these preliminary considerations in mind, we now go on to consider the actual legislation in regard to the relations of the sexes. But here we must once more, recall the fact that, in regard to all matters vitally affecting the community, there had always been a custom, and even before written law appears that custom had been adopted and modified in Yahwism by Moses himself. That this was actually the case here is rendered highly probable by the history of legislation in this matter. In the Book of the Covenant there is no mention of sexual sin, save in one passage, {Exo 22:16} where the penalty for seduction of a virgin who is not betrothed is that the seducer shall offer a “mohar” for her, and marry her without possibility of divorce, if her father consent. If he will not, then the “mohar” is forfeited to the father nevertheless, as compensation for the degradation of his daughter. But it is obvious that there must have been laws or customs regulating marriage other than this, for without them there could have been no such crime as is here punished. Obviously, also, there must have been laws or customs of divorce. But of what these laws of marriage and divorce were Exodus gives us no hint. Deuteronomy, the next code, which on the critical hypothesis arose at a much later time as a revision of the Book of the Covenant, contains much more, i.e., it draws out of the obscurity of unwritten custom a more extensive series of provisions in regard to purity. The Law of Holiness then adds largely to Deuteronomy, and with it the main points of the law of purity have attained to written expression. But the influence of the higher standard set in the Decalogue also makes itself felt, -not in the law so much as in the historic books and the prophets-and our task now is to trace out first the legal development, then the prophetical, and to show how the whole movement culminated and was crowned in the teaching of Christ.
Beginning then with Deuteronomy, we find that the chastity of women was surrounded by ample safeguards. Religious prostitution was absolutely prohibited. {Deu 23:18} Further, if any violence was done to a woman who had been betrothed, the punishment of the wrong was death; if done to a woman who was not betrothed, the wrong was atoned for by payment of fifty shekels of silver to her father, and by offering marriage without possibility of divorce. If marriage was refused, then the fifty shekels was retained by the father in consideration of the wrong done him. When the woman was a sharer in the guilt the punishment in all cases was death; while pre-nuptial unchastity, when discovered after marriage, was punished, as adultery also was, with the same severity. {Deu 22:13-18} In women who were free, therefore, purity was demanded in Israel as strenuously as it ever has been anywhere, though in man the only limit to sexual indulgence was the demand, that in seeking it he should not infringe upon the fathers property in his daughter, or the husbands in his wife or his betrothed bride.
Admittedly the original underlying motive for this moral severity was a low one, the mere proprietary rights of the father or husband. But it would be a mistake to suppose that purely ethical and religious motives had no place in establishing the customs or enactments which we find in Deuteronomy. With the lapse of time higher motives entwined themselves with the coarse strand of personal proprietary interest, which had originally, though perhaps never alone, been the line of limitation. Gradually there grew up a standard of higher purity; and when Deuteronomy was written, though the original line was still clearly visible, it was justified by appeals to a moral sense which reached far beyond the original motives of the customary law. The continually recurring burden of Deuteronomy in dealing with these matters is that to work “folly in Israel” is a crime for which only the severest punishment can atone. To “extinguish the evil from Israel,” and to put away such things as were “abominations to Yahweh their God,” are the great reasons on which the writer of Deuteronomy founds the claim for obedience in these cases. Obviously, therefore, by his time, under the teaching of the religion of Yahweh, Israel had risen to a moral height which took account of graver interests than the rights of property in legislating for female purity. The cases included in the law had been determined by considerations of that kind; but the sanctions by which the commands were buttressed had entirely changed their character. The holiness of God and the dignity of man, the consideration of what alone was worthy of a “son of Israel,” have taken the place of the coarser sanctions. In this way a possibility of unlimited moral progress was secured, since the cause of purity was indissolubly bound to the general and irresistible advance of religious and moral enlightenment in the chosen people.
Moreover the personality of the woman was acknowledged in the entire acquittal of the betrothed woman who had been exposed to outrage in the country, where her cries could bring no help. In the earliest times most probably the punishment of death would have been inflicted equally in that case, since the husbands property had been deteriorated to such a degree as to make it unworthy of him. But in the Deuteronomic provision quite other things are drawn into the estimate. The moral guilt of the person concerned is now the decisive consideration. The woman has ceased to be a mere chattel, and the full claims of her personality are in the way to be recognized. These were great advances, and for these it is vain to seek for other causes than the persistent upward pressure of the Mosaic religion. The moral superiority of Israel at the time of the conquest over the much more cultured Canaanites, as also over the nomadic tribes to which they were more nearly related, is due, as Stade says, ultimately to their religion; and no reader of the Old Testament, in our time at least, can fail to see that their moral progress ill the land they conquered depended entirely upon the same cause. At the Deuteronomic epoch purity had already been placed upon a worthy basis, as a moral achievement of the first importance, and impurity had taken its proper place as a degrading sin. But much still remained to be done before these principles could be extended into all domains of life equally.
How far they had penetrated in early times may perhaps best be seen in the Deuteronomic references to divorce. Before Deuteronomy there is no law of divorce, nor indeed is there any after it. We may perhaps even say that there is in it not so much the statement of a law of divorce, as a reference to custom which the writer wishes to correct or reinforce in one particular respect only. Notwithstanding the Jewish view, therefore, which finds in Deu 24:1-4 a divorce law, we must adduce the passage as a new and striking proof of what we have all along asserted, that neither Deuteronomy nor any other of the legal codes can be taken as complete statements of what was legally permitted or forbidden in Israel. Behind all of them there is a vast mass of unwritten customary law, and divorce was doubtless always determined by it. That this was the case will be seen at once if the passage we are now concerned with be rightly translated. It runs thus: “When a man taketh a wife and marrieth her, and it shall be (if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found in her some unseemly thing) that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it into her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she go forth out of his house and goeth and becometh the wife of another man, and if the latter husband also hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand and send her out of his house, or if the latter husband die who took her to him to wife, then her former husband who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife after that she has permitted herself to be defiled.” All the passage provides for, therefore, is that a divorced woman shall not be remarried to the divorcing man after she has been married again, even though she be separated from her second husband by divorce or death.
There is consequently no law of divorce here stated. There is merely a reference to a general law or custom by which divorce was permitted for “any unseemly thing,” and according to which a chief wife at any rate could be divorced only by a “bill of divorcement,” and not by mere word of mouth, as is common in many Eastern lands today. Mosaic influence may have procured this last slight increase in rigor, and Deuteronomy certainly adds three other restrictions, viz. that after remarriage a woman cannot be again married to her first husband, and that pre-nuptial wrong done to a woman by her husband, or a false accusation by him after marriage, takes away his right of divorce altogether. But the woman has no right of divorce at all, so firmly fixed throughout all Old Testament time was the belief in the inferiority of women. On the whole, therefore, divorce in Israel remained, after the law had dealt with it, much on the level to which the tribal customs had brought it. So far as the legislation dealt with it, it tended to restriction; but when all is said it remains true that the Israelite law of divorce was in the main much what it would have been had there been no revelation. But the spirit of the religion of Yahweh was against laxity in this matter, and this more rigorous feeling finds expression in the evident distaste for the remarriage of a divorced woman which is expressed Deu 24:4. Remarriage is not forbidden; but the woman who remarries is spoken of as one who has “let herself be defiled.” No such expression could have been used, had not remarriage after divorce been looked upon as something which detracted from perfect feminine purity. The legislator evidently regarded it as the higher way for a divorced woman to remain unmarried so long at least as the divorcing husband lived. If she remained so, the possibility of reunion was always kept open, and the law evidently looked upon the ultimate annulment of the divorce as the course which was most consonant with the ideal of marriage.
It is thus clearly seen how our Lords statement {Mat 19:8} -” Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so”-is true.
And when we leave the law and come to history and prophecy, we find this view to have been a prevalent one from early times. In one of the earliest connected historical narratives, that of J, {Gen 2:24} the union of husband and wife is said to be so peculiarly intimate that it makes them one body, so that separation is equivalent to mutilation. And the prophets remain true to this conception of marriage, as the one which fitted best into their deeper and loftier views of morality. From Hosea onwards {Hos 2:19} they represent the indissoluble bond between Yahweh and His people as a marriage relation, founded on free choice and unchangeable love. The possibility of divorce is no doubt often admitted, and the conduct of Israel is represented as justifying that course. But the prophetic message always is that the love of God will never permit Him to put away His people; and the people are often addressed as faithless and faint-hearted, because they yield to the temptation of believing that He has cast them off. {Isa 1:1} Evidently, therefore, the prophetic ideal of marriage was that it should be indissoluble, that it should be founded upon free mutual love, and that such a love should make it impossible for either husband or wife to give the other up, however desperate the errors of the guilty one might have been.
Perhaps the finest expression of this view occurs in Isa 54:1-17 in the exhortation addressed to exiled Israel and beginning. “Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear.” There the ideal Israel is urged to lay aside all her fears with this assurance: “For thy Maker is thine husband; Yahweh of Hosts is His name: and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall He be called. For Yahweh hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit; how can a wife of youth be rejected? saith thy God.” The full meaning of this last touching question has been well brought out by Prof. Cheyne (Isa 2:1-22, p. 55): “Even many an earthly husband (how much more then Yahweh!) cannot bear to see the misery of his divorced wife, and therefore at length recalls her; and when his wife is one who has been wooed and won in youth, how impossible is it for her to be absolutely dismissed.” The rising tide of prophetic feeling on this subject culminates in the pathetic scene depicted by Malachi, who in Mal 2:12 ff. reproves his people for their cruel and frivolous use of divorce. Drawn away by love of idolatrous women, they had divorced their Hebrew wives; and these in their misery crowded the Temple, covering the altar of Yahweh with “tears and weeping and sobbing,” till He could endure it no more. He had been witness of the covenant made between each of these men and the wife of his youth; yet they had broken this Divinely sanctioned bond. He therefore warns them to take heed, “for Yahweh the God of Israel saith, I hate putting away, and him who covers his garment with violence.” The Rabbinic interpreters, not being minded to give up the privilege of divorce, have wrested these words into “for Yahweh the God of Israel saith, if he hate her put her away.” But, so wrested, the words bring down the whole context in one ruin. They are intelligible only if they denounce divorce, and in this sense they must undoubtedly be taken.
There remains for consideration, however, a marriage which the Deuteronomist permits, which seems to run counter to all the finer feelings and instincts of his later time. It is dealt with in Deu 25:5-10, and is notable because it is a clear breach of the definite rule that a man should not marry his deceased brothers wife. But it will be obvious at once that the permission of this marriage stands upon quite a different footing from the prohibition. It is permitted only in a special case for definite ends; and while the sanction of the prohibition is the infliction of childlessness, {Lev 20:21} the man who refuses to enter upon marriage with his deceased brothers wife is punished only by being put to shame by her before the elders of his city. We have not here, therefore, a law in the strict sense. It is only a recognition of a very ancient custom which is not yet abolished, though evidently public feeling was beginning to make light of the obligation. Its place in the twenty-fifth chapter, away from the marriage laws, {which are given in Deu 21:10 ff., Deu 22:13 ff., and Deu 24:1-4} and among duties of kindness, seems to hint this, and we may consequently take the law as a concession. That the custom was ancient in the time of Deuteronomy may be gathered from the fact that in Hebrew there is a special technical term, yibbem, for entering on such a marriage. The probability is, indeed, that levirate marriage was a pre-Mosaic custom connected with ancestor-worship. It certainly is practiced by many other races, e.g., the Hindus and Persians, whose religions can be traced to that source. Under that system, it was necessary that the male line of descent should be kept up in order that the ancestral sacrifices might be continued, and to bear the expense of this the property of the brother dying childless was jealously preserved. In India, at present, both purposes are served by adoption, either by the childless man or by the widow. In earlier times, when fatherhood was to a large extent a merely juridical relationship, when, that is to say, it was a common thing for a man to accept as his son any child born of women under his control, whether he were the father or not, the same end was also attained by this marriage. Originating in this way, the practice was carried over into the Israelite social life when it changed its form, and the motives for it were then brought into line with the new and higher religion. The motive of keeping alive the name and memory of the childless man was substituted for that of securing the continuance of his worship; and the purpose of securing the permanence of property, landed property especially, in each household, was substituted for that of supplying means for the sacrifice. Later, the motive connected with the transmission of property possibly became the main one. For, since the levirate marriage came in, according to the strict wording of our passage, whenever a man died without a son, whether he had daughters or not, this marriage would seem to have been an alternative means of keeping the property in the family to that of letting the daughters inherit. But the spirit of the higher religion, as well as a more advanced civilization, was unfavorable to it. The custom evidently was withering when Deuteronomy was written, though in Judaism it was not disallowed till post-Talmudic times.
The impression, therefore, which the laws and customs regulating the relations of men and women in Israel give to the candid student must be pronounced to be a strangely mixed one. It would probably not be too much to say that it is at first a deeply disappointing one. We have been accustomed to fill all the Old Testament utterances on this subject with the suffused light of Gospel precept and example, till we have lost sight of the lower elements undeniably present in the Old Testament laws and ideas concerning purity. But that is no longer possible. Whether of enmity or of zeal for the truth, these less worthy elements have been dragged forth into the broad light of day, and in that light we are called upon to readjust our thoughts so as to accept and account for them. Evidently at the beginning the Israelite tribes accepted the uncivilized idea of woman. On that as a basis, however, customs and laws regarding chastity, marriage, and divorce were adopted, which transcended and passed beyond that fundamental idea. The moral complicity of woman, or her innocence, in cases where her chastity had been attacked, came to be taken into account. Polygamy, though never forbidden, received grievous wounds from prophets and others of the sacred writers; and as marriage with one became more and more the ideal, the higher teachers of the people kept the indissolubleness of marriage before the public mind, till Malachi denounced divorce in Yahwehs name. In regard to the bars to marriage there was little change, probably, from the days of Moses; but the old family rules were reinforced by a deep and delicate regard for even the less palpable affections and relations which grew up in the home.
The final attainment, therefore, was great and worthy enough; but the cruder and less refined ideas, which had been inherited from pre-Mosaic custom, always make themselves felt, and have even dominated some of the laws. They dominated, even more, the practice of the people and the theory of the scribes; so that on the very eve of His coming who was to proclaim decisively the indissolubility of marriage, the great Jewish schools were wrangling whether mere caprice, or some immodesty only could justify divorce. Nevertheless the Decalogue, with its deep and broad command, culminating in prohibition even of inward evil desire, had always had its own influence. The teachings of the prophets, which breathe passionate hatred of impurity, had I taught all men of good-will in Israel that the wrath of God surely burned against it But the stamp of imperfection was upon Old Testament teaching here as elsewhere. Like the Messianic hope, like the future of Israel, like all Israels greatest destinies, the promise of a higher life in this respect was darkened by the inconsistencies of general practice; and uncertainty prevailed as to the direction in which men were to look for the harmonious development of the higher potencies which were making their presence felt. It was in them rather than in the law, in the ideals rather than in the practice of the people, that the hidden power was silently doing its regenerating work. The religion of Yahweh in its central content surrounded all laws and institutions with an atmosphere which challenged and furthered growth of every wholesome kind. The axe and hammer of the legislative builder was rarely heard at work; but in the silence which seems to some so barren, there slowly grew a fabric of moral and spiritual ideas and aspirations, which needed only the coming of Christ to make it the permanent home of all morally earnest souls.
With Him all that the past generations “had willed, or hoped, or dreamed of good” came actually to exist. He made what had been aspiration only the basis of an actual Kingdom of God. As one of its primary moral foundations He laid down the radical indissolubility of marriage, and made visible to all men, the breadth of the law given in the Decalogue by forbidding even wandering desires. In doing this He completely surpassed all Old Testament teaching, and set up a standard which Christian communities as such have held to hitherto, but which from lack of elevation and earnestness they seem inclined in these days to let slip. That such a standard was ever set up was the work of a Divine revelation of a perfectly unique kind, working through long ages of upward movement. Humanity has been dragged upwards to it most unwillingly. Men have found difficulty in living at that height, and nothing is easier than to throw away all the gain of these many centuries. All that is needed is a plunge or two downwards. But if ever these plunges are taken, the long, slow effort upwards will only have to be begun again, if family life is to be firmly established, and purity is to become a permanent possession of men.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary