Deuteronomy (Written)

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
A Certificate of Divorce 

A bit more than a year ago, a member of the congregation sent me the sermon, “God’s Divorce From Israel” given by Chuck Baldwin. I was asked to address it as Baldwin claims that the divorce of Israel means that the people in the land of Israel today are not God’s people, and that they are no longer a part of what God is doing in the world.

As his sermon is openly posted on YouTube for all the world to see, I will not be as gracious as I might otherwise have been. Unsound theology is to be called out – openly and publicly – as Paul reveals in Galatians 2.

To his credit, Baldwin does acknowledge that Jews are a part of the church, but that is as obvious as the nose on one’s face. Any person on the planet who trusts in Jesus is a part of the church, which is the Bride of Christ.

Other than this one sermon, I know nothing about the guy, but this sermon clearly reveals a faulty hermeneutic that completely misses what God is doing in and through Israel in redemptive history. I can’t hold back my disdain for his theology, nor will I.

Such doctrine as his reveals a God that is not faithful to His covenants, and His word is not to be taken at face value. We must remember that man’s unfaithfulness does not negate the faithfulness of God.

In his sermon, Baldwin cites the verses used in today’s passage – well, actually he miscites them – in order to come to an erroneous conclusion concerning Israel of today. He says that these verses in Deuteronomy 24 were as a protection for the women.

That has nothing to do with what Moses is saying. The entire basis for what is said is found only in verse 4, and it has nothing to do with that. He then says that the Lord through the prophets (Isaiah and Jeremiah) is basically saying –

“As you used divorce against your wives, I am using divorce against you. You and I are through. This marriage is over.”  Chuck Baldwin

In saying that, he is then implying that the Lord is the wrongdoer because He has divorced His wife who is supposed to be protected as he is noted as saying earlier. The thought process is unclear and convoluted.

If the Lord is the Husband, and the purpose of the law is to protect the wife, then one could only conclude that the Lord failed to protect his wife by divorcing her.

This is the problem with not studying the law properly and, instead, relying on life application and topical sermons. There is no understanding of what the Lord is actually conveying in really important passages of Scripture.

The doctrinal statement on his church’s website says, “LF opposes Socialism, Neoconism and Zionism. Accordingly, we do not support the socialistic Welfare State or the Neocon Warfare State. Neither do we believe that the modern Zionist State of Israel represents either historical (Biblical) Israel or prophetic Israel. Accordingly, we reject Scofieldism and dispensational futurism.”

In other words, the prophetic words of Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation, and etc. are not to be taken literally when they speak of Israel the people, and they have no part of God’s redemptive plans for the future. That means, 100% and for sure, that he does not believe our text verse for today…

Text Verse: “I will bring back the captives of My people Israel;
They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them;
They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them.
¹⁵ I will plant them in their land,
And no longer shall they be pulled up
From the land I have given them,”
Says the Lord your God.” Amos 9:14, 15

There is no time in human history where this has been literally fulfilled. Israel was pulled up, twice, and so if you don’t believe that the people in the land today are who the Lord is speaking of, then you either don’t believe the word, or you must say that these words mean something other than what they say. Thus, with his theology, the Bible (the word of God) concerning these verses is 1) wrong, or 2) it must be spiritualized.

This is true with countless other Old Testament (and New Testament) verses which clearly indicate that God is not through with Israel, and that He has planted them back in the land of Israel for His sovereign purposes.

In one of his statements during the sermon, and speaking of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, he says that “the destruction of Jerusalem was God’s writ of divorcement from Israel.” I’d love to find where in Scripture he gets that idea. But… it’s not there, so he won’t.

He was saying this in relation to the words of Jeremiah 3 (which we will cite today). Jeremiah 3 is at a time prior to the first temple (along with Jerusalem) destruction, not only the second… oops.

So how can the “divorce,” that Baldwin is speaking of, be the Roman “divorce.” Obviously, the temple destruction does not mean – as he arbitrarily and incorrectly claims – a “divorce.” If it did, there would have been two divorces… oops.

Secondly, as you will see in our words today, the Lord never divorced Judah… oops. That is actually rather important because Judah is the land, and the people group, where the temple (and Jerusalem) is… oops. The Lord was speaking about a divorce with the northern ten tribes (Israel)… oops. But even they are called back by the Lord to Himself, as is clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture… oops.

There are lots and lots of oopsies in his 22 minute and 41 second sermon. So many that I am personally embarrassed for him. A little less golfing (or whatever) and a bit more study will help resolve this. A reliance on a literal interpretation of the word of God, when it calls for it, will help resolve this too. And, learning the context of what is being said is always a giant help.

In that sermon, his thoughts are confused, his handling of Scripture is appalling, and his conclusions make no sense at all. As this is the only sermon I have ever seen of his, I will chalk this up to a really bad week, no time to prepare for his sermon, and temporary loss of memory involving important Bible verses as he was speaking.

Otherwise, if this is indicative of his normal theology, those who sit under him are being instructed in a very poor manner by someone who probably should take an extended vacation and do nothing but read the word again and again until it sinks in.

Wonderful truths, such as pleasing God through sound doctrine and proper theology are to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again and… May God speak to us through His word today and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. When a Man Takes a Wife (verses 1-4)

The first four verses comprise one sentence, the main subject of which is not found until the fourth verse. Everything before that is given to bring the reader to understand what is forbidden there. Moses’ words are stated precisely and with a logical purpose and intent. With that in mind, verse 1 now begins with…

“When a man takes a wife and marries her,

ki yiqah ish ishshah ubealah – “When takes man wife and has dominion over her.” The word baal, signifying to marry or rule over, is used. The idea of being a wife or being married has been seen many times since Genesis 2:4, but the verb baal has only been used twice so far, beginning in Genesis 20:3. In both instances, it referred to the authority of the man over the woman.

The noun form, baal, has been used a couple times in the same manner. Moses’ use of it now shows that he is referring to rule of a man over a woman. In the use of this now, it implies an unequal footing. This is seemingly at odds with what Genesis 2 states –

“And Adam said:
‘This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.’
²⁴ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:23, 24

In the words of Genesis 2, it can be argued that it implies an equalness displayed in mutual interaction. There may be differing roles, but they would seemingly work harmoniously together. Only in Genesis 3 does this appear to change –

“To the woman He said:
‘I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.’” Genesis 3:16

Nothing was said of rule until that point, but from that point on it is taken as an axiom that the man will rule over his wife. Even if a oneness is still what occurs, it is a oneness with an authority and rule within the union. As for this rule of the man over the woman in marriage, in such a state, Moses’ continues with…

^{1 (con’t)} and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes

v’hayah im lo timsa khen b’enav – “and it shall be if no she finds grace in his eyes.” This is a conditional clause leading to the purpose stated in the main clause.

Further, Moses is not saying that such will ever happen, but he is simply noting that if it does happen, what actions can be taken, and what things are forbidden based on such action.

The man has assumed authority over a woman through marriage, and now she fails to find grace in his eyes. Grace is getting what one does not deserve. In other words, there is something wrong, and the husband is unwilling to overlook that thing. His favor does not extend to such a point. If this is the case…

^{1 (con’t)} because he has found some uncleanness in her,

ki matsa bah ervat davar – “when he has found in her nakedness thing.” In other words, there is something in her that exposes her as unclean, blemished, having some shame, or so on.

The actual meaning is hard to pin down. As such, different sects within the nation arbitrarily decided what it meant, even extending it to any reason at all.

In this, they leaned more on the precept provided now than on the implication of Genesis 2:24, which was the binding of two as one. In other words, they took the union as one being made of two, rather than the union of two as being one. In this, Moses says…

^{1 (con’t)} and he writes her a certificate of divorce,

v’katav lah sepher kerithuth – “and writes to her scroll divorce.” Here, the word kerithuth, or divorce, is introduced. It is from karath, to cut off or cut down. Thus, it is a cutting of the bonds of marriage.

The word will be seen just four times, twice in this chapter, and then in Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:8. All four of these instances are to be cited as we continue in our words today. Divorce will be referred to in the New Testament as well. For now, he…

^{1 (con’t)} puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,

v’natan b’yadah v’shilekhah mibeito – “and gives in her hand, and sends her out from his house.” It is an obvious set of words. The man determined that the woman wasn’t right for whatever reason the law tolerated. As the authority over her, the certificate is written, he then puts it in her hand and sends her away.

The woman, because of the bill of divorce, is “presumably” permitted to be married to another. As noted above, the idea of a certificate of divorce is also found in the New Testament. Jesus more perfectly explains this troubling matter –

“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ ³² But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 5:31, 32

Jesus, quoting Moses now, does not say that what Moses said is inappropriate. Rather, he shows that the result of what is written can lead to that which is inappropriate. In other words, He does not say that the divorce itself is sin, but a divorce can lead to sin. Paul further clarifies what this means, saying –

“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. ¹¹ But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”  1 Corinthians 7:10, 11

Paul shows that a departure means the woman is to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband. And more, he says that in the New Covenant a believing husband is not to divorce his wife. He provides no exceptions to this.

He does, however, provide more guidelines and an exemption to one married to a nonbeliever –

“But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. ¹³ And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ¹⁵ But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. ¹⁶ For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” 1 Corinthians 7:12-16

In all cases, the onus to protect the marriage is placed upon the believer. As far as Jesus’ words, it is only later in Matthew that He explains the meaning of His earlier words –

“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’
⁴ And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” ⁵ and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? ⁶ So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
⁷ They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’
⁸ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.’” Matthew 19:3-9

Jesus shows that what the law permitted does not abrogate what the original intent for marriage is. Despite this, Moses has permitted divorce and the sending away of a woman. Thus…

² when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife,

v’yatseah mibeto v’haleka v’hayetah l’ish akher – “And she goes out from his house, and she has walked, and she becomes to man another.” This is still a conditional clause. Nothing has been mandated. There is simply a proposition set forth.

The woman has been given a bill of divorce, she has been sent out, and in her being sent out, she has become wife to another man (ish, not baal – man, not master). As such, a new dynamic has arisen for the man who sent her out which begins to be revealed next…

³ if the latter husband detests her

u-seneah ha’ish ha’akharon – “and hates her the man, the latter.” The woman has become a wife to another man (ish, not baal – man, not master), and he now hates her. As this is still a proposition set forth as a possibility, if such is the case…

^3 (con’t) and writes her a certificate of divorce,

v’katav lah sepher kerithuth – “and writes to her scroll divorce.” It is word for word and letter for letter exactly the same as what was said of the first husband. The latter husband has written her a scroll of divorce. It is still a proposition of possibility. If such is the case, and he then…

^3 (con’t) puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,

v’natan b’yadah v’shilekhah mibeito – “and gives in her hand, and sends her out from his house.” Again, it is a word for word and letter for letter copy of what was said in verse 1. She has been given a scroll of divorce, it has been placed in her hand, and she has been sent out of his house. If such is the case…

^3 (con’t) or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,

o ki yamut ha’akharon asher leqahah lo l’ishah – “or when dies the latter who took her his to wife.” A second possibility that ends the marriage is set forth. The latter husband (ish, not baal – man, not master) dies. If either of these occurs in this hypothetical situation…

⁴ then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife

lo yukal balah ha’rishon asher shalekha la’shuv leqakhtah lihyot lo l’ishah – “No is able her master the first, who sent her, to return to take to be to his to wife.” There is no allowance for the first husband (baal, not ish – master, not man) to retake the woman as his wife again.

This is the purpose of the entire set of verses. The conditional statements in the proposition set forth have been laid down in order to form a point of law. That is now stated, explicitly. But the reason is not yet given. That only comes in the next words…

^4 (con’t) after she has been defiled;

The Hebrew is precise here. It is a form of verb known as a Hithpael. It is a causative reflexive verb. In other words, there is causation (being defiled), but the action of the verb is both committed and received by the same entity. It says: akhare asher hutamaah – “after which she has allowed herself to be defiled.”

It is the woman who has gone astray. This is exactly in line with the words of both Jesus and Paul as seen earlier –

“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ ³² But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 5:31, 32

“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. ¹¹ But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”  1 Corinthians 7:10, 11

Jesus says that when the woman remarries, she has committed adultery. A man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. In both cases, the woman is the cause of the adultery. Paul (speaking of believers) says the same thing.

This is why the term baal has been used of the first husband, but ish was used of the latter husband. The authority remains with the first husband, because she was one flesh with the husband as the head. In remarrying, she has caused herself to be defiled.

Of these verses, John Lange correctly states –

“The pointing in the original makes it clear that Moses does not institute or command divorce. The pointing in our version implies that he does so. He is merely prescribing limitations or regulations to a prevailing custom, which was not in accordance with the institution of marriage, and was only permitted there in this limited sense, and under these restrictions, ‘for the hardness of their hearts.’” John Lange

In fact, in following the words set forth by Moses, it is clear that the first husband was the head of that woman, even when she marries another. Her obligation remains to him, and in her having another man, she then is the one who brings defilement on herself. As she is defiled at that point, he cannot take her back…

^4 (con’t) for that is an abomination before the Lord,

ki toevah hi liphne Yehovah – “for abomination she before Yehovah.” It is a feminine pronoun indicating “it” or “she.” Most translations say, “for it (meaning “that”) is an abomination before the Lord.” Only the Douay Rheims gets it right saying, “because she is defiled, and is become abominable before the Lord.”

The question for translators is, “Is this referring to the act of the man taking her back – ‘it is an abomination” – or is it referring to the woman who has been defiled – ‘she is an abomination?’” The subject is the act, but the nearest antecedent is the woman. The answer is clearly, “she is an abomination.”

The unusual construction of the verse helps clue into the meaning. It says, “before Yehovah,” not “before Yehovah your God.” In her defiling of herself, she is an abomination before the Lord. Because of this, the action is still wrong because of her state. As such, it will be sin, as Moses next says…

^4 (con’t) and you shall not bring sin on the land

v’lo takhti eth ha’arets – “and no shall you bring sin on the land.” By joining again to a woman who has allowed herself to be defiled, the guilt of sin will be brought upon the land. And with that in mind, Moses again reminds the people that it is the land…

*^4 (fin) which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

The land is given to Israel. They are to remain pure, undefiled, and holy before the Lord. In sending away a wife, the woman can – in fact – marry another. However, in doing so, she brings defilement on herself. However, it is the man who allowed this to occur.

The law, through Moses, is not condoning divorce. Rather, it is speaking against it while still permitting it. That could not be any clearer from the context of Moses’ words. He has shown that the original husband is the one to whom she is obligated, even when she goes to another man (baal as opposed to ish).

If the first husband was to take her back after being defiled by another man, then guilt would be brought upon the land.

What is it that the Lord expects of us?
To marry and to stick it out through and through
Let us fix our eyes on the Lord Jesus
And in our times of trouble, He will carry us through

Just as the Lord is merciful and forgiving
So should we be to our own husband or wife
Together we should be united in holy living
And let offenses go; not living in strife

Just as the Lord has forgiven His people
When they turn and repent at His feet
Let us forgive the spouse we joined ‘neath the steeple
And remain united in the bond of love so sweet

To the glory of the Lord who died for us
Let us live in harmony before the Lord Jesus

II. Pictures of Christ

To establish the relationship of the Lord to Israel, one must go back to the covenant made between them – the covenant at Sinai. In that covenant, Israel agreed to the terms – whatever they may be – that the Lord spoke forth.

In those terms as found in Leviticus 26, the Lord promised that Israel would be punished, even to the point of exile, for disobedience. Israel (the northern ten tribes) was exiled by the Assyrians. Eventually, Judah was exiled to Babylon.

Despite the northern ten tribes being exiled, none of those tribes can be considered as “lost.” People from most of those tribes are mentioned later in Scripture, after the record of the exile of those tribes. As long as there are members of those tribes, the tribes cannot be considered as gone.

In fact, Jesus, Paul, and James refer to the twelve tribes of Israel. Both Paul and James refer to them in the present tense, clearly indicating that there were twelve tribes at their time. This is scripturally indisputable.

In Ezekiel 4, the Lord used Ezekiel as a living metaphor for what he would do in regard to the exile of the people. He tells the prophet to lie on his left side for 390 days, in order to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. He then told him to lie on his right side for 40 days to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah.

It is to be noted that Ezekiel’s prophecy is dated at or after the supposed “divorce” of Israel in Jeremiah 3:8. It is a huge and unexplained problem with Mr. Baldwin’s theology.

Together, they total 430 days. In that state, the Lord tells Ezekiel what to do in order to mirror what He would do to Israel. In this, the Lord told Ezekiel that he would be a sign to the people. They would bear punishment a year for every day that Ezekiel lay on his side.

The exile of Judah (that included people of the twelve tribes), lasted for seventy years. In this, there would thus be 360 years (a day for a year) of punishment left. However, in Leviticus 26, the Lord said to the people, “And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins” (26:18).

The correction of exile and punishment did not change the people. In this, the remaining 360 were to be multiplied by 7, thus equaling 2520 years. The decree of King Cyrus, which allowed the people to return to Israel from the Babylonian exile, came in May 536BC.

Using the biblical calendar of 360 days per year and adding 2520 years (907,200 days) to that, one arrives at May 1948, the year Israel was reestablished as a nation. If one accepts this dating, it is obvious that there is yet a purpose for the reestablishment of Israel as a nation.

Countless other dates and events could be added to this list, but that alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the prophecy of Ezekiel has merit in relation to the people of Israel today.

Along with that, another prophecy from Daniel 9 has a bearing on the dating of the coming of Messiah, the second exile of Israel for rejecting the Messiah, and the reintroduction of the law by Israel for another seven years.

It is another study for another time. But it clearly demonstrates that both the dispensation of the law for seven more years, and then final establishment of Israel in the New Covenant, lie ahead for them. In fact, Leviticus 26 refers to exactly this as it closes out –

“But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me,
⁴¹ and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies;
if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—
⁴² then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember;
I will remember the land.
⁴³ The land also shall be left empty by them, and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them;
they will accept their guilt, because they despised My judgments and because their soul abhorred My statutes.
⁴⁴ Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them;
for I am the Lord their God.
⁴⁵ But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God:
I am the Lord.” Leviticus 26:40-45

The Lord first appeals to the covenant with Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham (verse 42). It is a land covenant to the people of Israel. However, the Lord continues by appealing to the Mosaic Covenant in verse 45.

That covenant continues beyond Sinai (Horeb) to the words of Deuteronomy. In that covenant are words already seen that speak of a Prophet like Moses whom the people are to hear, lest the Lord cut them off. That Prophet like Moses was clearly seen to be Christ Jesus.

As that is a part of the Mosaic Covenant, and as the Mosaic Covenant is what the Lord appeals to, then it must be that in appealing to the Mosaic Covenant, the Lord is also referring to the acceptance of the Prophet like Moses – Christ Jesus.

Jesus, speaking to Jerusalem – the leaders of Israel and representative of the nation – even told them that this would be the case, stating that He would return to them when they acknowledge Him as this One Moses spoke of –

 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! ³⁵ See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” Luke 13:34-35

Christ will return only when they acknowledge Him as Lord (meaning Yehovah). Confusing though it may be, this needed to be laid out in order to understand what is being pictured in the passage today.

The Lord took Israel as a wife under the Old Covenant. That is explicitly stated in Jeremiah 31 –

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— ³² not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.” Jeremiah 31:31, 32

In the sermon by Chuck Baldwin, and in an attempt to deny any connection of Israel today to the Lord as His people, he cites Isaiah 50, claiming it demonstrates that the Lord divorced Israel –

“Thus says the Lord:
‘Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce,
Whom I have put away?
Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you?
For your iniquities you have sold yourselves,
And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.
² Why, when I came, was there no man?
Why, when I called, was there none to answer?
Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem?
Or have I no power to deliver?
Indeed with My rebuke I dry up the sea,
I make the rivers a wilderness;
Their fish stink because there is no water,
And die of thirst.
³ I clothe the heavens with blackness,
And I make sackcloth their covering.’” Isaiah 50:1-3

Unfortunately, Baldwin completely misunderstood what is being conveyed there. First, the Lord is speaking to Judah, not Israel, but more he never says that he divorced their mother. Isaiah is speaking to the people in the plural about the state of their mother, Judah, whom they issue from.

She had sold herself, putting herself away. The Lord – typologically the Male in the agreement – had not issued a certificate of divorce. That is evidenced in the words –

“Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce,
Whom I have put away?”

It is a rhetorical question demanding a negative answer. Judah had put itself away, but that was not with the Lord’s direction, and thus it could not be binding. This is also what Israel did. The Lord says in Jeremiah 3:1 –

“They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife,
And she goes from him
And becomes another man’s,
May he return to her again?’
Would not that land be greatly polluted?
‘But you have played the harlot with many lovers;
Yet return to Me,” says the Lord.” Jeremiah 3:1

As Jeremiah 3 progresses, the Lord shows that Israel had, in fact, received her certificate of divorce for her transgressions –

Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. ⁹ So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. ¹⁰ And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the Lord.
¹¹ Then the Lord said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. ¹² Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say:
‘Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the Lord;
‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you.
For I am merciful,’ says the Lord;
‘I will not remain angry forever.
¹³ Only acknowledge your iniquity,
That you have transgressed against the Lord your God,
And have scattered your charms
To alien deities under every green tree,
And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the Lord.
¹⁴ “Return, O backsliding children,” says the Lord; “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. ¹⁵ And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. Jeremiah 3:8-15

The Lord speaks to the people individually (it is plural). Though Israel had received her certificate of divorce, this did not negate individuals returning to Him, which He clearly calls out for them to do, saying, “Return, O backsliding children,” says the LORD; “for I am married to you (plural).”

How would this come about? By bringing them to Zion. Thus, Israel would now fall under the umbrella of Judah. Not understanding this, and lumping Israel and Judah together as one, Baldwin said, “…and actually, we ought to say, ‘Israel divorced God’ because it was the sins of Israel that broke up the marriage.”

He is wrong. But more, there is no provision for this in the law. It is the man who issues the certificate. The law never says a woman could do so, and the typology must be maintained.

The entire point of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is based on the conclusion found in verse 4. But that did not occur between the Lord and Judah. This is why the alternating terms baal and ish are used. The use of baal is directed toward the first husband. He is the head of the woman.

Before getting to that, Baldwin makes a point of saying that the Lord placed upon the people of Israel the name lo ami (not my people). He then uses that to justify that Israel is no longer God’s people.

When saying that, he doesn’t say where the term lo ami comes from, but it is from Hosea 1:9. Citing that as a stand-alone thought completely ignores the rest of Hosea, such as Hosea 2:13-23. It is there that the Lord makes a play on these words that Moses stresses in our sermon verses (baal and ish). First, he uses the term Baal when speaking of foreign gods, saying –

“I will punish her
For the days of the Baals to which she burned incense.
She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry,
And went after her lovers;
But Me she forgot,” says the Lord.” Hosea 2:13

However, the Lord notes that after their punishment, they would be restored, using the name Baal (the false god) in 2:13 to make a pun on the word baal (Master, referring to the Lord) thus showing the intimate connection between the Lord and Israel –

“Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
Will bring her into the wilderness,
And speak comfort to her.
¹⁵ I will give her her vineyards from there,
And the Valley of Achor as a door of hope;
She shall sing there,
As in the days of her youth,
As in the day when she came up from the land of Egypt.
¹⁶ “And it shall be, in that day,”
Says the Lord,
“That you will call Me ‘My Husband (ishi),’
And no longer call Me ‘My Master (baali),’
¹⁷ For I will take from her mouth the names of the Baals,
And they shall be remembered by their name no more.
¹⁸ In that day I will make a covenant for them
With the beasts of the field,
With the birds of the air,
And with the creeping things of the ground.
Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth,
To make them lie down safely.
¹⁹ “I will betroth you to Me forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me
In righteousness and justice,
In lovingkindness and mercy;
²⁰ I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,
And you shall know the Lord.” Hosea 2:14-20

In this, He said –

“That you will call Me ‘My Husband (ishi),’
And no longer call Me ‘My Master (baali),’

He is returning to the state in Eden where the man and woman would be as one, no longer calling the Lord Master, but Man. As far as the term lo ami, or “not my people,” Baldwin completely missed the context of Hosea and of what is stated in the New Testament. In the next verses of Hosea, the Lord says –

“Yet the number of the children of Israel
Shall be as the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered.
And it shall come to pass
In the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There it shall be said to them,
‘You are sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10

Anyone can make the Bible say anything if verses are arbitrarily picked out and cited. But when taken in context, they will inevitably bear a completely different meaning. As far as the New Testament, Paul first cites that verse as pertaining to the Gentiles in Romans 9 –

“As He says also in Hosea:
‘I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.’
²⁶ “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.” Romans 9:25, 26

However, Peter then uses that same thought when speaking to the Jews (meaning after the church age as is in accord with the dispensational model and the layout of the books of the Bible. Peter, the apostle to the Jews, has his epistles placed after Paul’s. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles). That is found in 1 Peter 2 –

“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; ¹⁰ who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.” 1 Peter 2:9, 10

Peter’s letter is addressed not to the Gentiles, but to “the pilgrims of the Dispersion,” meaning Jews. Even Hosea gives us this insight as is laid out in a chiasm –

Hosea 1:9-2:23 – “But Me she forgot,” says the LORD.
A Chiasm of Contrasts – Our Unfaithfulness and God’s Unlimited Mercy (11/23/07)

a 1:9  You are not my people, I will not be your God.
—–b 1:10  Jezreel (God will sow.)
———-c 2:3  Dry Land, thirst.
—————d 2:5  Wife departs from her husband.
——————–e 2:7  Wife returns to her husband.
————————-f 2:9  Take away the new wine.
——————————g 2:10-12  God punishes Israel.
——————————h 2:13  God will punish her.
———————————–x 2:13  “But Me she forgot,” says the LORD
——————————h 2:14a  God will allure her.
——————————g 2:14b  God comforts Israel.
————————-f 2:15  Give vineyards.
——————–e 2:16  LORD says, “That you will call me ‘My Husband.’”
—————d 2:19  Husband betroths wife.
———-c 2:21, 22  Grain, new wine, oil.
—–b 2:22  Jezreel (God will sow.)
a 2:23  You are my people; You are my God.

While Israel was a people, the Gentiles were without the Lord. When Israel rejected their Messiah, the Gentiles – along with any believing Jews – became the people of God. When the church is raptured (yes, a pre-tribulation rapture is the proper doctrine of the church), the focus will again be on Israel.

The issue of Israel as a nation is separate, but it is still relevant. For Israel, there is individual salvation, and there is collective (national) salvation. Each Jew who is to be saved must come to Christ individually.

However, God made promises to Israel as a nation as well. For Israel as a nation to be saved, they must call on Christ nationally. That will happen when they (the leaders representing the people) call out, just as Jesus said they would and as was cited in Luke 13 earlier.

Who is the Lord’s bride? The answer is not a simple “Here she is.” The idea of being a bride of the Lord is not a literal Man with a woman next to Him dressed in white. It is a concept of being brought into a right covenant relationship with Him.

The idea of a single betrothal/marriage is not all there is in the redemptive narrative. Believers are individually betrothed to Christ when we believe the gospel.

The church will be presented as the Bride of Christ as stated in Ephesians 5. This will occur at the rapture of the church. Israel was united to the Lord as a bride under the Old Covenant, and they will nationally be again united to the Lord as a bride as is indicated in the many Old and New Testament passages referred to in our sermon today. Finally, there is the general thought of being united as a bride to Christ as is described in Revelation 21.

How is Israel who had (and still has) rejected the Lord brought into a right relationship with God? It is through the death of Christ on their behalf. They are the wife who made herself an abomination before the Lord.

According to the law (the Old Covenant), they could not be brought back to Him once they had been defiled as they were, but through Christ and the New Covenant, it is not only possible, it will come to pass. The New Covenant, the Christ Covenant, was established not with the church but with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

That is stated, explicitly, in Jeremiah 31, and again in Hebrews 8. How could this come about when both Israel and Judah had been an unfaithful spouse? How could the Lord say to Israel, “Return to Me!” after they had been given a certificate of divorce?

It is because Christ Jesus, the Lord, died to pay their sin-debt. In His death, a New Covenant was established with them. The divorce of Israel by the Lord occurred under the Mosaic Covenant. The renewing of the betrothal to Israel and Judah occurs under the New Covenant in His blood.

Gentiles are not what is going on here. Gentiles are grafted into what is going on here. We merely share in the commonwealth of what God has bestowed upon Israel. How preachers can stand in the pulpit and question the word of God, the promises of the Lord, and the integrity of His covenants is utterly astonishing.

When theology becomes about “us,” it is improper theology. When we reject what God has explicitly stated, we reject Him. His word is a reflection of who He is. For whatever perverse reason, the past two thousand years have been filled with a theology that essentially says, “God cannot be trusted because God has divorced these people and they are no longer His people.”

Yes, Hosea calls that out, but then Hosea turns around and says exactly the opposite only a moment later. God is not fickle, but we are lazy. We form our opinions, and we stop when they are formed, rejecting anything else that will stand in the way of what we have decided. But God has revealed to us what He is doing… and it is marvelous. Christ! It is all about Christ and what He had done for Israel, Judah, and indeed all of the world.

“Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. ²⁹ For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. ³⁰ For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, ³¹ even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. ³² For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
³³ Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
³⁴ ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?’
³⁵ ‘Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?’
³⁶ For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” Romans 11:28-36

Closing Verse: “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ³⁴ No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jeremiah 31:33, 34

Next Week: Deuteronomy 24:5-22 And don’t forget it, kid! (Remember what the Lord your God Did) (70^th Deuteronomy Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. But He also has expectations of you as He prepares you for entrance into His Land of Promise. So, follow Him and trust Him and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

A Certificate of Divorce

“When a man takes a wife and marries her
And it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes
Because he has found some uncleanness in her
And he writes her a certificate of divorce, so to you I apprise

Puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house
When she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes
———-another man’s wife
If the latter husband detests her
And writes her a certificate of divorce, thus ending
———-their married life

Puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house
Or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife
Then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back
To be his wife after she has been defiled by her remarried life

For that is an abomination before the LORD
And you shall not bring sin on the land
Which the LORD your God is giving you
As an inheritance, so you shall understand

Lord God, turn our hearts to be obedient to Your word
Give us wisdom to be ever faithful to You
May we carefully heed each thing we have heard
Yes, Lord God may our hearts be faithful and true

And we shall be content and satisfied in You alone
We will follow You as we sing our songs of praise
Hallelujah to You; to us Your path You have shown
Hallelujah we shall sing to You for all of our days

Hallelujah and Amen…

 

 

 

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, ² when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, ³ if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, ⁴ then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

 

Deuteronomy 23:15-25
Holy Conduct Before the Lord, Part II

There is a lot of similarity in what is said here and what Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians. Much of that is found in 1 Corinthians 6. Moses writes about holy conduct before the Lord, and Paul writes about the same, even mirroring particular points that Moses makes at times.

The idea of holiness is that of being set apart. In the case of holiness to the Lord, it speaks of being set apart to Him in life, conduct, and action. The more we move towards Him, the less our life will be affected by the flesh. And it is the flesh that wages war against the spirit.

This is a struggle all of us have had and will continue to have to some extent. But the grace of God is there to cover over our failings if we are in Christ. Thank God for Jesus Christ. It is He who came to do God’s will in order to bring us into a better hope than the law could ever provide. It is a marvelous and blessed thing God has done for us through Him.

Text Verse: “Previously saying, ‘Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), ⁹ then He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second. ¹⁰ By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:8-10

While typing up this sermon, I noticed a decidedly chiastic structure to the verses we will look at today. Rather than specifics, for the most part it deals with generalities, but it’s pretty evident when you see it laid out –

Deuteronomy 23:15-25 – Holiness, purity, and justice
Miscellaneous Laws for Israel (28 June 2021)

a. rights within the land (15, 16)
—–b. prohibitions concerning vows (17, 18)
———- c. you shall not charge interest to your brother (19)
—————x. to a foreigner you may charge interest (20)
———-c. to your brother you shall not charge interest (20
—–b. mandates concerning vows (21-23)
a. rights within the land (24, 25)

The first section, verses 15 and 16, deals with the rights of a slave who had escaped from his master. At first, it might not make much sense, but in looking at the details, it all comes into focus. As far as slavery, I’m sure I’ve mentioned my ancestor Thomas Garrett before.

He is who my grandfather, Thomas Garrett was named after. He devoted his life’s energy to freeing the slaves in America. As this passage deals with not returning an escaped slave, and as I need an introduction that will fit with the theme, I’ll tell you just a little about him once again.

From a Wikipedia page on him, we’ll read just a short passage –

“Garrett was also a friend and benefactor to the noted Underground Railroad Conductor Harriet Tubman, who passed through his station many times. In addition to lodging and meals, Garrett frequently provided her with money and shoes to continue her missions conducting runaways from slavery to freedom. Garrett also provided Tubman with the money and the means for her parents to escape from the South. (Both were free people at the time Tubman rescued them, but Tubman’s father faced arrest for secreting runaway slaves in his cabin.)”

“The number of runaways Garrett assisted has sometimes been exaggerated. He said he “only helped 2,700” before the Civil War put an end to slavery.”

“In 1848, however, he and fellow Quaker John Hunn were sued in federal court for helping the Emeline and Samuel Hawkins family of seven slaves owned by two owners escape, although their lawyer colleague John Wales had managed to free them from imprisonment the previous year when a magistrate granted a writ of habeas corpus. However, the two slaveowners sued Hunn and Garrett. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney presided at the trial in the New Castle Court House, and James A. Bayard, Jr. acted as prosecutor. Garrett and Hunn were found guilty of violating the Fugitive Slave Act by helping a family of slaves escape. As the ‘architect’ of the escape, Garrett received a $4,500 fine, later reduced to $1,500. According to Kathleen Lonsdale, referencing the American Friends Service Committee, ‘The fine was so heavy that it left him financially ruined, yet Thomas Garrett stood up in Court and said Judge thou has left me not a dollar, but I wish to say to thee and to all in this courtroom that if anyone knows a fugitive who wants a shelter and a friend, send him to Thomas Garrett and he will befriend him.’ A lien was put on his house until the fine was paid, and although Hunn ended up losing his house in a sheriff’s sale, with the aid of friends Garrett continued in his iron and hardware business and helping runaway slaves to freedom. By 1855, traffic through Garrett’s station had increased, and Sydney Howard Gay noted that in 1855 to 1856 nearly 50 fugitives whom Garrett had helped arrived in New York.”

He was adamant that the slaves he helped would not be returned to their master. Whether you agree with his position or not, he was a man of principle and he did what was right in regard to this great issue that plagued his time in history.

As for the slave who escaped from his master that Moses refers to, and concerning several other interesting issues laid down in our passage today, they will be looked at in detail as we continue.

Great things are to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again and… May God speak to us through His word today and may His glorious name ever be praised.

Various Laws (verses 15-25)

¹⁵ “You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you.

The pronouns are all in the singular, “you Israel.” It is a national mandate that the escaped slave is not to be returned to a master outside of Israel.

The words here need to be taken in the fuller context which is inclusive of the next verse. This is referring to a non-Hebrew slave that has escaped into a town of Israel. The words lo tasgir, or “no you shall give back,” speak of being shut up, as if in confinement. A paraphrase might be, “you shall not re-confine slave to his master.”

He has escaped, obtaining his freedom, and he should be allowed to continue in that state. In modern Hebrew, the words lo tasgir mean “to not rat out.” In the end, to rat out a slave would result in the same thing happening, and so the meaning hasn’t changed that much, at least in this regard.

The unusual thought of not returning a slave being included here is rather perplexing. This is so much the case, that some scholars tie it to the idea of warfare that was mentioned in the previous verses (9-14) of the last sermon.

However, those verses – though dealing with an army – were not really speaking of warfare, but of purity and holiness. The same idea will be seen in verses 17 and onward, and so it is unlikely that this is simply referring to a slave who escaped during war. Instead, Moses must be conveying the idea of purity, holiness, and/or what is just here as well.

What seems to be the case is that the thought of him being a slave is secondary to the larger principle being set forth. In other words, it says this in Leviticus 19 –

“And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. ³⁴ The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:33, 34

The same principle is being stated here in Deuteronomy. Israel was a slave-nation to Egypt. Each person was an individual slave as well. But they had been brought out from that. However, there is the truth that being brought from slavery in Egypt they had been brought into the bondage of the law. Paul explains this to us –

“Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? ²² For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. ²³ But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, ²⁴ which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— ²⁵ for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— ²⁶ but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. ²⁷ For it is written:

‘Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.’” Galatians 4:21-27

Israel was brought out of slavery to Egypt and brought into the bondage of the law. The escaped slave was to not be returned to his master out of the same principle by which the Lord freed Israel.

The idea now being set forth is that everyone is a slave to someone or something. One must choose who he will be a slave to. This principle continues on for those in Christ. As Paul says –

“Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. ²¹ Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. ²² For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. ²³ You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. ²⁴ Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.” 1 Corinthians 7:20-24

For the escaped slave now being referred to, Moses next says…

¹⁶ He may dwell with you in your midst,

The words continue in the singular, demonstrating that this is the slave of an alien, not one who was enslaved in Israel. He is allowed to dwell within the midst of Israel. No restrictions are placed upon him in this regard, as is seen in the next words…

^{16 (con’t)} in the place which he chooses

These words further express his freedom. He is given complete freedom as to where he will reside. He is not restricted from any tribe of Israel, nor is he mandated to reside in a particular tribe of Israel. He is to be considered accepted in whatever tribe he settles in, which is…

^{16 (con’t)} within one of your gates,

Not only is he not restricted to, or from, any tribal inheritance, he is also not restricted from the security of living within a city in any given tribal inheritance. He is to be accepted into the gates of whatever city he chooses.

One must remember that this is a matter of law. Moses has penned it, and therefore, the people must comply in the same manner as any other law. This cannot be denied without violating the very law and covenant that has established them as a people.

To ensure the precept was fully fleshed out, and to avoid any ambiguity at all, he next says…

^{16 (con’t)} where it seems best to him;

ba’tov lo – “in the good to him.” The decision is at his pleasure alone, and no person was to interfere with it. In essence, he has all the rights of a member of the nation to determine his own place and circumstance. Anything else would be considered a hindering influence upon him, and Moses forbids that, saying…

^{16 (con’t)} you shall not oppress him.

lo tonenu – “no you shall suppress him.” The word is yanah. Most translations say “oppress.” That would mean, “you shall not keep him in subservience.” And that very well may be the meaning. He was a slave, and you shall not place him back into that state.

However, the previous clauses speak of his freedoms in choice: 1) He may dwell with you in your midst; 2) in the place he chooses; 3) within one of your gates; 4) where it seems best to him.

Because of this, I would suggest that this is referring to suppression rather than oppression. They are not to suppress him or stop him from making the choice that suits him best.

Regardless of this, one can see Israel as a type of life in Christ. Outside of Israel, the person is in bondage. A person that comes to Christ (as we saw in 1 Corinthians) is the Lord’s freedman.

However, and having that in mind, a person who comes to Israel from slavery is then made a slave to the law. Likewise, a person that comes to Christ, even if the Lord’s freedman, becomes a slave to righteousness, as Paul says, “And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:18). As already said, one must choose who or what he will be a slave to.

The verse here speaks of eternal salvation as clearly as it can be stated. A person who comes to Christ is to never be sent back his previous master, the devil. As a slave to Christ, he is so forever. He is forever free from the bondage he has been brought out from.

That an escaped slave who comes to Israel becomes a slave to the law is seen in the very next words because they are words that apply to all in Israel, and they are binding upon them…

¹⁷ “There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel,

Here it refers to the qedeshah, or harlot. The word speaks of a female devotee. The word is closely tied to the word qodesh, meaning “holy,” “sacred,” “set apart,” and so on. The reason is that such a person is set apart to prostitution, quite often in relation to temple prostitution.

No daughter of Israel was to be forced or allowed to be set apart in this manner. It is contrary to purity and holiness, and thus it is forbidden.

The law is holy and righteous, and it says that no person may participate in such unrighteousness. Just as a slave who has joined to Israel is not to engage in such an act of unrighteousness, no person who comes to Christ is to seek after the flesh. Thus, the thought of a Christian being a slave to righteousness is the same as what is seen here.

This does not mean that a person in Israel cannot actually do what Moses forbids here. There are examples later in Scripture of them doing just this. And it does not mean that a Christian cannot do what is forbidden in the epistle. We all know Christians who have followed after the flesh. But the precepts are given. Moses next continues with…

^{17 (con’t)} or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.

Here it speaks of the qadesh. It is the masculine of the word just used in the previous clause. It signifies a male who is in the same position. He is set apart to prostitution, and thus a sodomite. As it is closely tied to that which is sacred, it is translated at times as a temple prostitute or cult prostitute.

Just as these were forbidden in Israel, the same is true with what is written in the New Testament epistles.

¹⁸ You shall not bring the wages of a harlot

Here it speaks of the ethnan zonah, or wages of a harlot. The word ethnan is new, coming from tanah, signifying “to hire,” but with reference to hiring a prostitute. Thus, the ethnan is the wages spent when hiring her out. Along with that…

^{18 (con’t)} or the price of a dog

u-mekhir kelev – “and price dog.” This is not speaking of an actual dog. Rather, it follows on with the thought of the previous clause. That spoke of the wages of a harlot. Here, a new word, mekhir, or price, is joined to that of a dog, meaning the male prostitute of the previous verse. Moses is using parallelism –

ritual harlot (qedeshah) / wages of a harlot
perverted one (qadesh) / price of a dog

The idea is then the doglike manner in which the perverted one presents himself. This term is later used in Revelation 22:15 –

“But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.” Revelation 22:15

Having said this, because such a person is equated to a dog, it is certain that no price of an actual dog was to be included in this prohibition of being brought…

^{18 (con’t)} to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering,

The idea here is that of the necessity to pay ones neder, or vow as was already explained in Numbers –

“Then Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, “This is the thing which the Lord has commanded: ² If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” Numbers 30:1, 2

All of Numbers 30 details the subject of vows. Once the vow is made and confirmed, it became an absolute obligation to pay it. However, one could not then use the excuse that the necessity of paying a vow to the Lord would excuse obtaining the means of paying the vow through such sexual perversion. The reason is…

^{18 (con’t)} for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

The sale of a woman’s or a man’s body is, in itself, abominable to Yehovah. As Yehovah is Israel’s God, it cannot be considered acceptable to pay a vow to Him with money that was obtained in a manner which is contrary to His moral nature.

The general tenor of this thought is found in Romans –

“You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? ²² You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? ²³ You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? ²⁴ For ‘the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,’ as it is written.” Romans 2:21-24

This could also be lumped into the thought of Romans 3:8, “Let us do evil that good may come.” As Paul says of those who would say such a thing, “Their condemnation is just.” As such, it is not acceptable to sell oneself (commit evil) in order to bring forth a vowed offering (do what is proper).

¹⁹ “You shall not charge interest to your brother—

Here the verb nashak is used. It signifies “to bite.” As such, it speaks of interest or usury. In other words, by adding on to the original cost for repayment, it is as if one is biting another. Thus, the words lo tashik akhikha could be paraphrased as, “You shall not bite to your brother.” With that, Moses next explains it using the noun form of the same word…

^{19 (con’t)} interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest.

The idea of lending without interest has already been stated in Exodus 22 and Leviticus 25. In both instances, it speaks of lending to the poor and not charging interest. For this reason, some scholars see this as only pertaining to the poor.

However, Moses does not qualify it as such. Rather, he says “your brother” without any other qualifications. And more, for strong emphasis, the Hebrew repeats the noun neshek, or interest, three times, and then follows up with the verb form: neshek keseph neshek okel neshek kal davar asher yishak – “interest silver, interest food, interest anything which is lent on interest (lit: which bites).

The words, if considered in relation to Christ, show the enormity of what He did for us. Not only does He not charge interest on such things, He offers them without any cost at all –

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts,
Come to the waters;
And you who have no money (keseph, silver),
Come, buy and eat (food).
Yes, come, buy wine and milk (anything)
Without money and without price.” Isaiah 55:1

Israel is given a standard, because it is a shadowy anticipation of the greater provision found in Christ towards His people, because they are His people. On the other hand…

²⁰ To a foreigner you may charge interest,

The word translated as “foreigner” is nokri. It signifies a stranger or something out of place. It is something that does not belong because the nature of the thing is foreign.

As traders came into or through the land – by ship, by camel, or whatever – they would naturally be willing to lend at interest. As such, it would make no sense to forbid the same towards them. The prohibition is, therefore, only one that pertains to a brother, meaning a fellow Israelite. As Moses again repeats…

^{20 (con’t)} but to your brother you shall not charge interest,

Moses turns around the words already said. “No shall you charge interest to your brother” / “and to your brother no you shall charge interest.” In this, there can be no manipulation of the law. It is clear and unambiguous. And there is a reason for this…

^{20 (con’t)} that the Lord your God may bless you

l’maan yebarekha Yehovah elohekha – “To end purpose may bless you Yehovah your God.” There is an end purpose in not charging interest which is to receive the blessing of the Lord. The implication is that in charging interest, such a blessing would be withheld. For the obedient, the blessing is one which will be…

^{20 (con’t)} in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess.

Moses uses the word mishloakh, an outstretching. A more literal reading is “in all which you stretch forth your hand upon the land.” One can think of everything prospering and each time the hand reaches out, it brings back abundance.

Thought through logically, it is essentially a promise that in not asking for extra from one’s brother, the Lord will – in turn – provide more than would have been obtained by asking for extra.

This is the third time that Moses has made a contrast between the nokri, or foreigner, and akhikha or “your brother.” The first was in Deuteronomy 15 concerning the release of debts in the seventh year –

“Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give up your claim to what is owed by your brother” Deuteronomy 15:3

The second was in Deuteronomy 17 in relation to setting a king over themselves –

“you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” Deuteronomy 17:15

This third is in relation to interest –

“To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest.” Deuteronomy 23:20

It is of note that Israel violated all three of these. The first is recorded as being violated in Jeremiah 34 –

“Therefore thus says the Lord: ‘You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and every one to his neighbor. Behold, I proclaim liberty to you,’ says the Lord—‘to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine! And I will deliver you to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth.’” Jeremiah 34:17

The second is recorded as being violated in John 19 –

“But they cried out, ‘Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!’
Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’
The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar!’” John 19:15

The third is recorded as being violated in Ezekiel 22 –

“In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you have made profit from your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me,” says the Lord God.” Ezekiel 22:12

The precepts, clearly laid out by Moses and yet violated by Israel, show the stark contrast to the greatness of Christ who perfectly fulfilled and exceeded these (and all) precepts of the law.

²¹ “When you make a vow to the Lord your God,

The words more precisely read, “When vowing a vow to Yehovah your God.” This is a voluntary act and the guidelines for it are laid out in (as noted earlier) Numbers 30. When a vow is made and confirmed, it becomes binding. It must be paid. But more, Moses says…

^{21 (con’t)} you shall not delay to pay it;

There are, as in any debts or vows, reasons why such things should be paid in a timely manner. There is the possibility that the vower might not be able to pay later.

If he was the victim of an accident, theft, other obligations arising, and so on… suddenly, the priorities may change. But one’s primary responsibility is to personal integrity before and towards the Lord.

It could be that the person will forget the vow was made. It may be that regret creeps in. It may be that the person dies before paying it. But, again, one’s primary responsibility is to personal integrity before and towards the Lord.

The impetus of the law is that any vowed vow should be treated as a priority in one’s life. Solomon, certainly thinking of this law now laid down by Moses, says –

“When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it;
For He has no pleasure in fools.
Pay what you have vowed—
⁵ Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.” Ecclesiastes 5:4, 5

As a vow is voluntary, the obligation rests in a very firm manner upon the one who made it to also perform it without fail. Should he fail in this, it shows a deep lack of integrity before the Lord. Thus…

^{21 (con’t)} for the Lord your God will surely require it of you,

The Hebrew is emphatic – “requiring, He will require it of you.” The vow has been uttered, and it must be performed. To delay brings in the possibility, and likely state, of nonperformance. In this, Moses then says…

^{21 (con’t)} and it would be sin to you.

The idea of sin is that which brings a curse. This is what the Lord rebuked Israel for in the making of a vow –

“But cursed be the deceiver
Who has in his flock a male,
And takes a vow,
But sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished—
For I am a great King,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“And My name is to be feared among the nations.” Malachi 1:14

To make a vow and then to sacrifice that which is blemished is to not fulfill the vow. The reason is because nothing blemished was to be offered to the Lord in a vow (Leviticus 22:17-23). In all vows, performance was expected, and it was expected in accord with the law.

²² But if you abstain from vowing, it shall not be sin to you.

Paul says, in Romans 4:15 that “the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.” As there is no law mandating a vow, there can be no transgression in not vowing. However, there is a law concerning vows. As such, in vowing and not performing, sin is imputed.

In this, one can see how the law works against a person every step of the way. It is a form of bondage even if it is good and holy. The problem is not in the law, but in man who does not perform the requirements of the law – whatever they may be. As such…

²³ That which has gone from your lips you shall keep and perform,

When the vow is made, and when the lips have uttered forth their words of obligation, then tishmor v’asita – “you shall keep, and you shall do.” It is a matter of law and therefore to fail to perform is to sin. And to sin is to thus incur guilt…

^{23 (con’t)} for you voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.

The person, in making a vow, places himself under law. This was, like Israel’s commitment to the Lord concerning the Mosaic Law, a voluntary act. Until they agreed to the law, it was not binding on them. But upon their agreement to it, they were no longer free from it.

A vow is no different. It is not a point of law until it is spoken with the mouth. But once it is spoken, it becomes a point of law, the stipulations of which must be fulfilled accordingly. And this is what Christ did.

First, He voluntarily placed Himself under the law. God was under no obligation to enter into the stream of humanity and fulfill the Mosaic code. But He did so –

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
⁷ Then I said, ‘Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
⁸ I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart.’” Psalm 40:6-8

The author of Hebrews, as seen in our text verse today, uses these words to show that Christ voluntarily placed Himself into this position in order to fulfill the law, take it away, and thereby establish the New Covenant.

But while under the law, the Lord made His own voluntary vows. That is prophesied in the 22^nd Psalm –

“I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.
²³ You who fear the Lord, praise Him!
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him,
And fear Him, all you offspring of Israel!
²⁴ For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from Him;
But when He cried to Him, He heard.
²⁵ My praise shall be of You in the great assembly;
I will pay My vows before those who fear Him.
²⁶ The poor shall eat and be satisfied;
Those who seek Him will praise the Lord.
Let your heart live forever!” Psalm 22:22-26

The Lord made vows and promised to pay them, making Himself the surety for their accomplishment. The author of Hebrews explains their fulfillment in Hebrews 2 –

“For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. ¹¹ For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, ¹² saying:
‘I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.’
¹³ And again:
‘I will put My trust in Him.’
And again:
‘Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.’” Hebrews 2:10-13

Thus, where Israel is shown to have failed in their performance of the code, Christ both kept and performed that which He spoke with His mouth.

²⁴ “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure,

The final two verses of the chapter convey the same thought. In the first one, it deals with the vineyard. Anyone in Israel was allowed to walk upon the cultivated land at will, even onto someone’s property. It is the Lord’s land, and He – through Moses – indicates as much.

While there, the person is allowed to eat anavim k’naphshekha saveekha – “grapes according to your soul your satisfaction.” In other words, there is no prohibition on eating as much as one desires, even to filling, while in another’s field. However…

^{24 (con’t)} but you shall not put any in your container.

The idea here concerns that what you can eat and nothing more. Nothing beyond that was to be taken from the field. Likewise…

²⁵ When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand,

Moses introduces two new words here. The first is qataph, meaning to crop off, cut down or up, or pluck. It will be seen five times, once here, twice in Job, and twice in Ezekiel.

The second word is found only here, melilah. It refers to the head of grain. Anyone could pick the heads and eat them at will, just as with the grapes. It is what Jesus, and His disciples, did as is recorded in the gospels –

“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. ² And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, ‘Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!’” Matthew 12;1, 2

What they were doing was perfectly legal. It is not the eating that they say isn’t lawful, but the picking of the grain. As this was considered a work, the Pharisees spoke against Him for it.

In turn, Jesus defended Himself by citing accounts from Scripture to demonstrate to them that what they were doing was not without precedent, and then applying such exemptions to Himself. As far as the law of the grain, they were not in violation of the precept. The allowance is given by Moses. However…

*^25 (fin) but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor’s standing grain.

Here is the second and last use of the word khermesh, meaning a sickle. It comes from kharam which is the act of devoting something to God through destruction, exterminating, and so on.

Like filling a vessel with grapes, it was forbidden to cut down stalks of grain which could then be carried out of the field and threshed. One could only pick and eat what was in his hand.

The point of these last two verses is summed up in Jesus’ final words to the Pharisees as He responded to their accusations –

“But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. ⁸ For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Matthew 12:7, 8

The law set down by Moses now is one of mercy for the hungry. Though the field is the property of another, the law says that this is not stealing. Therefore, the law is given, in this case, to provide mercy to the hungry. That takes precedent over the eighth commandment. However, to take more would be a violation of the command.

As this is so concerning the law being one of mercy, then the hungry are not disobedient to the Sabbath when they eat what comes to their hand. No violation of the fourth commandment results.

Along with that, as the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), and as Christ is the ideal Man, and as there was a need to be filled for the Man, then what occurred on the Sabbath could not be considered a violation of the law.

The idea of purity, holiness, and of what is just has been the guiding thought of what is presented in this chapter. Each point was given to Israel to guide their conduct and to maintain them as a holy people before the Lord.

And yet, each point has – in one way or another – anticipated the Person and work of Christ who would come and fulfill both the legal requirements set down for Israel, and also the typology set forth by the Lord in the various precepts.

Again, and again, the law is revealing to us the greatness of what God has done in Christ by leading us to the law, through the law, and into a new place where we can fellowship with Him apart from the condemning influence of the law.

In this, He asks us to have faith in what He has done. It is this simple act of acknowledging His work that brings us into a right relationship with Him. As such, we can then live for God without the sentence of death hanging over us that has troubled man since our first father.

Let us be wise and accept the Gift of grace by receiving Christ as Savior. This is what God would ask of you today, and it is what I ask you to consider with all of your heart and mind. Reach out and be restored – to the renewing of your soul in Christ our Lord.

Closing Verse: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Romans 10:4

Next Week: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 Israel often issued these without considering the Source… (A Certificate of Divorce) (69^th Deuteronomy Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. But He also has expectations of you as He prepares you for entrance into His Land of Promise. So, follow Him and trust Him and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

Holy Conduct Before the Lord, Part II

You shall not give back to his master, this you shall not do
The slave who has escaped from his master to you

He may dwell with you in your midst
In the place which he chooses within one of your gates
Where it seems best to him
You shall not oppress him as this word states

“There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel
Or a perverted one of the sons of Israel, so to you I tell

You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog
To the house of the Lord your God, such thinking
———-would be flawed
For any vowed offering
For both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God

“You shall not charge interest to your brother
This is a command and not a request
Interest on money or food
Or anything that is lent out at interest

To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother
You shall not charge interest, so to you I address
That the Lord your God may bless you
———-in all to which you set your hand
In the land which you are entering to possess

“When you make a vow to the Lord your God
You shall not delay to pay it, such you shall not do
For the Lord your God will surely require it of you
And it would be sin to you

But if you abstain from vowing, if this you do
It shall not be sin to you

That which has gone from your lips
You shall keep and perform, as certainly
———-as north is north and south is south
For you voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God
What you have promised with your mouth

“When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard
You may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure
But you shall not put any in your container
Your mouth is to be the sole measure

When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain
You may pluck the heads with your hand again and again
But you shall not use a sickle
On your neighbor’s standing grain

Lord God, turn our hearts to be obedient to Your word
Give us wisdom to be ever faithful to You
May we carefully heed each thing we have heard
Yes, Lord God may our hearts be faithful and true

And we shall be content and satisfied in You alone
We will follow You as we sing our songs of praise
Hallelujah to You; to us Your path You have shown
Hallelujah we shall sing to You for all of our days

Hallelujah and Amen…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¹⁵ “You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. ¹⁶ He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.

¹⁷ “There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. ¹⁸ You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

¹⁹ “You shall not charge interest to your brother—interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest. ²⁰ To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess.

²¹ “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you. ²² But if you abstain from vowing, it shall not be sin to you. ²³ That which has gone from your lips you shall keep and perform, for you voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.

²⁴ “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure, but you shall not put any in your container. ²⁵ When you come into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor’s standing grain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 23:1-14
Holy Conduct Before the Lord, Part I

The final verses of our passage today deal with handling of human waste. It’s something I have been intimately familiar with for most of my life. In high school, dad got me into a job at the local wastewater treatment plant. I could go on all day, every day for months, telling you stories about my adventures there.

But that wasn’t enough for me, so when I came back from the military, I got back into the field for some years. Then I left it to go mine gold in Alaska. When I got back from that, I did a few other things, and then…yes, I got back into handling wastewater for several more years. I could go on and on about it.

The stories would probably never get tiring too. It is a great field to be in, the work is (to me) exciting and challenging, and it is one of those things that is actually doing a huge service for society in many ways, for the environment, and for the health and well-being of people worldwide.

Eventually, I left that to take up preaching, but I still have to take care of such things on a smaller level six days a week. Yes, I clean public bathrooms at a mall I take care of. I can absolutely assure you that it is ten thousand times worse than working at a wastewater plant… maybe a million.

No wonder the passage today says what it says. When things aren’t properly taken care of in this regard, my morning job is as distasteful as anything you could imagine. The one word I can use to really catch the scent (pun intended) for what I have to deal with is “unholy.”

Hence, the Lord told the Israelites that their war camps were to be holy. It is that simple. It is as obvious as the nose on a person’s face (and as obvious TO the nose on a person’s face), why we are to properly take care of business.

Text Verse: “But you have not so learned Christ, ²¹ if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: ²² that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, ²³ and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, ²⁴ and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.” Ephesians 4:20-24

If I can give one general theme for all of Deuteronomy, it would be in accord with the title of this sermon – Holy Conduct Before the Lord. Obviously, each section is quite a bit different, but that is a good main theme for it.

Some of it deals with conduct towards others, some of personal conduct concerning hygiene, and so on. But one thing we need to do is to not get so carried away in our analyses of Scripture that we make the word say something wholly unintended. It is a big and not-uncommon problem though.

One of the sites I use quite often is Abarim Publications. They have the best analyses of the meaning of names in Scripture to be found anywhere. And some of their Bible commentaries are very insightful.

But their commentary on verses 12 and 13 of our passage today is so out of line with the intent of what is being said that I am actually embarrassed to recommend them lest someone read it and get misdirected down such an odd avenue.

Once we start doing what they did there, from that point on we can make anything say anything. This is not responsible theology. We need to stick closely to what the text actually says, and then consider any typological analogies based solely on how the words are fulfilled through the work of Christ or how they apply to believers based on the work of Christ.

I just thought I would say that about Abarim because I want people to be careful and not just accept what they read or hear because it sounds enlightening or insightful. I love their site, I enjoy some of their biblical analyses, but everything has to be carefully considered and not just taken at face value.

You should even do this with the Superior Word sermons. Make sure what you are taking in is in accord with the word. And guess what? The only way you can do that is to … to … know the word! Be sure to know this word! It is well worth the time you put into it.

Great things are to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again and… May God speak to us through His word today and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. The Assembly of the Lord (Verses 1-8)

“He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.

The variations in the translation of this verse are rather incredible. Most are paraphrases to help explain the obvious intent of what is being conveyed. The Hebrew reads: lo yavo petsua daka u-kerut shaphkah biqhal Yehovah – “No shall enter – wounded, crushing and cutting, male organ – in assembly Yehovah.”

The first words, “No shall enter,” are obviously tied to the last words, “in assembly Yehovah.” The intervening words explain who is being described. Exactly what it means to “enter the assembly” is debated. Adam Clarke may be right when he says –

“If by entering the congregation be meant the bearing a civil office among the people, such as magistrate, judge, etc., 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.”

Whether correct, or whether it extends to something even more general, the matter was understood clearly by the people. The word qahal, or assembly, is not the same as edah, or congregation. Therefore, it may be that such a person could be a part of the congregation, but not entitled to the benefits of the assembly. That seems likely based on the coming verses.

In this verse, are three new and rare words –

Patsa. It is a verb meaning to bruise or wound. It comes from a root signifying “to split.” It will be seen only three times.

Dakah. It is a noun signifying a crushing from the verb dakah meaning to crush. This is the only time it is used in the Bible.

Shophkah. It is a noun that speaks of the male organ. Coming from shaphak, meaning to pour out, as in wine or blood. It is also only found here in the Bible.

What is being conveyed is a precept that has already been noted concerning the priests of Israel –

“For any who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face man or any limb too long, ¹⁹ a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, ²⁰ or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. ²¹ No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the Lord. He has a defect; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.” Leviticus 21:18-21

But this precept now goes further. It is an expansion of the thought presented concerning sacrificial animals in Leviticus 22 –

“You shall not offer to the Lord what is bruised or crushed, or torn or cut; nor shall you make any offering of them in your land.” Leviticus 22:24

The perfection of the Lord demands that only perfect sacrifices should be presented to Him. The defects now noted in human males, are defects that have been purposefully made by man’s hands. If such sacrificial animals were unacceptable as offerings, how much more should those who are His people, who bring forward their offerings, be perfect in their physical being!

In this, it is seen that perfection is demanded when coming before God. This has already been seen innumerable times in Leviticus. Anyone who was unclean for a host of reasons could not come before the Lord.

Some instances of uncleanness, like leprosy, kept them away from Him permanently. Some, such as an issue in the night, kept them away from Him until evening. But the idea being conveyed is perfection. Only perfection can come into the presence of the Lord.

Thus, being included in the assembly of the Lord meant to be considered a member of the Israelite society with all of its rights, privileges, and responsibilities. It is seen later that eunuchs served kings in Israel, but they were not a part of Israel. One of them, Ebed-Melech the Ethiopian eunuch, received a special blessing from the Lord in Jeremiah 39:16-18 –

“Go and speak to Ebed-Melech the Ethiopian, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Behold, I will bring My words upon this city for adversity and not for good, and they shall be performed in that day before you. ¹⁷ But I will deliver you in that day,” says the Lord, “and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. ¹⁸ For I will surely deliver you, and you shall not fall by the sword; but your life shall be as a prize to you, because you have put your trust in Me,” says the Lord.’”

In Acts 8, a eunuch came to Jerusalem to worship, but he was not considered a member of the assembly of Israel. Only those considered as acceptable could be a member of the society, and those who were members of the society still had to be acceptable – at any given time – to make their offerings to the Lord. Again, the idea is that nothing imperfect can come before the Lord.

In Israel, this was all typology. Like the animal sacrifices that were actually ineffectual (Hebrews 10:4), the people of Israel were actually imperfect as well. What they did and the way they were set apart, was only anticipatory of something greater. This is perfectly evident from the words of Isaiah –

“Do not let the son of the foreigner
Who has joined himself to the Lord
Speak, saying,
‘The Lord has utterly separated me from His people’;
Nor let the eunuch say,
‘Here I am, a dry tree.’
⁴ For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
⁵ Even to them I will give in My house
And within My walls a place and a name
Better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
That shall not be cut off.” Isaiah 56:3-5

Isaiah prophesied of a time when those who were excluded from the assembly under Moses would actually become an eternal part of the assembly through Christ. The irony of Isaiah’s words is that “those who are ‘cut off’ in the body, would never be ‘cut off’ before God because of Christ.”

This was literally fulfilled in the eunuch of Acts 8. Though excluded from the assembly of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant, he was brought into the commonwealth of Israel through the New Covenant in Christ, thus being given an everlasting name that would not be cut off.

In other words, he was made perfect in Christ and thus made acceptable to God. The typology of the Old only anticipated the fulfillment of it in the New. But this then brings in the words of Paul who was speaking to the Galatians about those of Israel who still preached circumcision as a necessary requirement for being acceptable to God. He says –

“And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. ¹² I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!” Galatians 5:11, 12

What Paul is referring to when he says “cut themselves off” is a step beyond what was mandated for Israel under the law. His words turn on the idea of circumcision. He is showing the utterly ludicrous nature of being circumcised in order to please God over and above what Christ had already done.

And so, he basically says, “Gee, if you can make God happy by being circumcised, then keep on cutting. Maybe He will be more pleased with additional mutilation of the flesh.” His words are both ironic and sarcastic.

If these Judaizers wanted to live out their lives under the Mosaic covenant, they would find that they were as unpleasing to God as if they had emasculated themselves.

They were still living out the typology and not entering into that which the typology anticipated. They had missed the significance of what Christ had done. In Him, we are perfected – regardless of the condition of our physical bodies.

If entering the presence of the Lord means we must be perfect, and if the Mosaic law can make nothing perfect, then no person could ever enter the presence of God. But in Christ, we are made perfect – once and forever. This is stated, explicitly, in Hebrews 7 –

“For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, ¹⁹ for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” Hebrews 7:18, 19

² “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord;

lo yavo mamzer biqhal Yehovah – “No shall enter illegitimate into assembly Yehovah.” Here is a new and rare word, mamzer. It is found only twice, here and Zechariah 9:6. It signifies a child of incest, or illegitimately generated.

An example of such a birth would be that of Judah and Tamar found in Genesis 38. Judah slept with his own daughter-in-law, and thus, under the law, such a child would be illegitimate. Though that happened before the time of the law, it still could be said to apply to the line of Judah that issued from that union, at least for a certain period. That is because…

^2 (con’t) even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Again, the word qahal, or assembly, is used. Any such person, even to the tenth generation, could not enter into the assembly of Yehovah. The number ten in Scripture signifies the perfection of divine order. It implies that nothing is wanting; that the number and order are perfect; that the whole cycle is complete.

When the tenth is arrived at, the cycle of the prohibition is thus completed. It is this verse that the author of the book of Ruth certainly had in mind when he finished the book with the words –

“Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; ¹⁹ Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; ²⁰ Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; ²¹ Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; ²² Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.” Ruth 4:18-22

Perez was the child born to the illegitimate union between Judah and Tamar. As such, until the tenth generation, the descendant could be considered illegitimate. Hence, those words, affixed to the end of Ruth, establish that David was – in fact – eligible to enter the assembly of the Lord and hold the office of king because he was the tenth, or completing, generation of the prohibition.

However, it is clear that his ancestors were accepted as members of the congregation of Israel, and so there is seen to be a difference between the edah, or congregation, and the qahal, or assembly. This will also be seen again as we continue.

³ “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord;

The explanation for this prohibition will be given in the next verse. For now, the words simply provide the precept. What is said must refer to a male, not a female. However, this is taken by Ezra as an absolute prohibition, and he forced those who married such women to divorce the wives thus also abandoning the children. Ezra must have misinterpreted the law because this cannot be the intent of the verse, as will be seen in the words ahead…

^3 (con’t) even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever,

A literal translation of the entire verse would say, “No shall enter Ammonite and Moabite in assembly Yehovah; also, generation tenth no shall enter to theirs in assembly Yehovah until vanishing point.”

The question is, does “until vanishing point,” or “forever,” interpret the words “tenth generation,” or does it simply mean that the precept of not entering to the tenth generation is to be adhered to forever?

The answer must be the latter. In other words, “tenth generation” is not – as some scholars claim – being used synonymously with “forever.” Rather, the term “forever” is speaking of the fact that this precept is to be adhered to forever.

First, the reason this must apply to males only is because David’s great grandmother was Ruth, the Moabitess, and yet David was a member of the assembly of the Lord. Likewise, his grandson through Solomon, Rehoboam, was the son of Naamah, an Ammonitess.

Therefore, it cannot be that this applied to the descendants of females from these people groups who married into Israel. And further, the word qahal, or assembly, must be specifically different than edah, or congregation.

This is because listed among David’s mighty men in 1 Chronicles 11 are Zelek the Ammonite (11:39) and Ithmah the Moabite (11:46). To be reckoned as members of his chief fighting men, they surely had to be members of the congregation, even if not members of the assembly.

Therefore, Ezra (and later Nehemiah) – though having good intentions, misunderstood the intent of Moses’ words now. Nehemiah clearly equates the words “to the tenth generation” with “forever” when he misquotes Moses –

“On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people, and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever come into the assembly of God.” Nehemiah 13:1

For now, Moses next explains why the precept is mandated…

⁴ because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt,

Rather than “when,” it reads, “in your coming out from Egypt.” The Exodus happened almost forty years before this event. It was a long, extended process that includes the travels after leaving. In this, the words introduce a new thought not previously stated. The Lord specifically told Israel to not harass these people groups –

“Then the Lord said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’” Deuteronomy 2:9

“And when you come near the people of Ammon, do not harass them or meddle with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot as a possession.” Deuteronomy 2:19

Despite the Lord’s admonition to not harm these people because they were extended family who had been given their land as a possession, these same groups did not extend any family courtesies toward Israel, not even the basic necessities such as bread and water. But more than that, they were hostile to them…

^4 (con’t) and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

This was specifically done by Moab, as is seen in Numbers 22. A singular verb is used as well (he hired). Thus, it speaks of the people as a collective.

This could be referring only to Moab then, but in 2 Chronicles 20:1, it identifies the two people as the same stock, even if they are separate clans. They were united in action and so it appears that the guilt of hiring Balaam is imputed to both…

⁵ Nevertheless the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam, but the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you,

Balaam, who was hired by Moab, blessed Israel. However, Israel is reminded now that the original intent was for him to curse Israel. It was because the Lord intervened in the affair that the anticipated curse was turned into a blessing. Moses then explains why this is what came about saying…

^5 (con’t) because the Lord your God loves you.

This is in the singular still. It refers to the nation as the object of the Lord’s affections. And that affection is for who they can be, not necessarily who they are. God is love, and it is the anticipated relationship with Israel, based on the covenant promises, that the Lord directs His love towards them. This is seen in the words of Jesus, the fulfillment of those covenant promises, in John 3 –

“The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. ³⁶ He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:35, 36

The Ammonites and Moabites were not a part of these covenant promises. As such, the Lord acted for Israel. But of this same Israel, most have rejected Christ. In this, God’s wrath remains on them. Thus, the love spoken of here is one of covenant love, and it pertains to those who are faithful toward Him in that covenant standing. For Ammon and Moab, this was not true. Thus…

⁶ You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.

The words are to Israel in the singular, meaning the nation as a whole. The aims and goals of Israel were not the same as the aims and goals of these nations. Nor would they ever fully see eye to eye. Because of this, they were not to unite as nations would in alliances and the like.

Does this prohibition extend to individual relationships as well? It is hard to be dogmatic, but it probably does because of the words of the previous verses, and because the next verse, will speak of individuals from Edom and Egypt. What is evident is that David had a friendly relationship with the king of Ammon –

“It happened after this that the king of the people of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his place. ² Then David said, ‘I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father showed kindness to me.’” 2 Samuel 10:1, 2

It is hard to say if David’s friendship with Nahash was a violation of the precept now being given by Moses. But what occurred in the rest of the chapter shows that the Ammonites remained suspicious of, and at enmity with, Israel. Nahash means “Serpent,” and the son of Nahash turned around and bit at David like a serpent would.

⁷ “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother.

Here, Moses speaks of the individual Edomite. He was not to be abhorred. This was to be the case even though Edom came out against Israel with the sword –

“Then Edom said to him, ‘You shall not pass through my land, lest I come out against you with the sword.’
¹⁹ So the children of Israel said to him, ‘We will go by the Highway, and if I or my livestock drink any of your water, then I will pay for it; let me only pass through on foot, nothing more.’
²⁰ Then he said, ‘You shall not pass through.’ So Edom came out against them with many men and with a strong hand. ²¹ Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory; so Israel turned away from him.” Numbers 20:18-20

Despite their conduct, Moses gives the explicit reason for why they were to not abhor an Edomite, saying emphatically: ki akhikha hu – “for your brother, he.” Edom was the brother of Israel; therefore, the Edomite was to be treated as a brother as well. Likewise…

^7 (con’t) You shall not abhor an Egyptian,

Egypt afflicted Israel, and Egypt attempted to destroy Israel, and yet, like the Edomite, the Egyptian was not to be abhorred. And again, Moses explicitly states why it was to be so –

^7 (con’t) because you were an alien in his land.

The people of Egypt had provided a home, land, and sustenance for over two hundred years. When Israel left the land, the Egyptians that they knew gave them many parting gifts. Israel was a stranger nation in their land, and yet they were cared for. Therefore, kindness was to be shown, in turn, to the individual Egyptian as well.

⁸ The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.

The Hebrews says, “sons,” rather than, “children.” In only three generations, instead of ten for Ammon and Moab, the sons of an Edomite or an Egyptian could enter the assembly of the Lord.

What can be seen here is a practical lesson that has already been seen in other examples. First, Edom can be considered near of kin, whereas Ammon and Moab – though related – were not. Secondly, Ammon and Moab had intended to curse Israel without ever having had any direct relations with them.

Edom could be seen as a near of kin, and thus in a special kinsman relationship with Israel. Egypt despite having afflicted Israel as a master to a bondservant, was also kind to him as well. The bonds between these two and Israel were stronger and more enduring than those of Ammon and Moab.

Thus, the lesson of forgetting the lesser matters and uniting on the greater and more enduring matters is being taught to Israel in these directives now.

Holiness before the Lord, to this we have been called
We are to always walk carefully in His ways
Let not our momentum diminish or get stalled
Let us press forward for all of our days

May it be so, to the honor of the Lord our God
May it be so, that we live in holiness
May it be so, every step that we trod
Onward toward the final prize, may we continue to press

He is our God and to Him we must be true
He is our Lord, our glorious Lord Jesus
Let us act in holiness in everything we do
And in this, His smiling countenance will radiate on us

II. Your Camp Shall Be Holy (verses 9-14)

⁹ “When the army goes out against your enemies, then keep yourself from every wicked thing.

For consistency, the word “army” here should be “camp.” The same word, makhaneh, is used twice in the next verse, both times translated as “camp.” It is the purity of the camp that is being focused on.

When Israel went out as a camp to fight their battles, the Lord would be among them. This has already been seen in Deuteronomy 20, saying –

“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” Deuteronomy 20:1

Moses is noting that the conduct and purity of the people will have a direct bearing on the Lord’s attention to them in battle. Impurity of the camp would show a disdain for the presence of the Lord who is ultimately the One who would either deliver the enemy over to Israel, or who would deliver Israel over to them. As such…

¹⁰ If there is any man among you who becomes unclean by some occurrence in the night,

This is referring to a man that has a nocturnal emission. If this were to occur, it would render him unclean until the next evening. This has already been explained in Leviticus –

“If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening.” Leviticus 15:16

In such a case as this…

^{10 (con’t)} then he shall go outside the camp; he shall not come inside the camp.

The Hebrew reads specifically in relation to the camp: v’yatsa el mikhuts lamakhaneh; lo yavo el tok ha’makhaneh – “and he shall go unto from outside to the camp; no shall he come unto midst the camp.” The purity of the camp is to be maintained. He is defiled, and he must separate himself from the camp, which is considered holy. That is to continue for a set time period…

¹¹ But it shall be, when evening comes,

The evening is the start of the new day. It is this time that is set forth again and again in Leviticus to reflect the time when a state of defilement is ended. However, this is the only time in Deuteronomy that the term is used in this way. As such, it is right to reexplain the meaning.

As biblical days go from evening until evening, it indicates that the state of defilement lasts until the starting of the new day. Only when the old had passed away, can the new come in.

The evening then looks forward to the work of Christ. He died in the afternoon and was buried as the evening approached. With His death and burial, all defilement of man was washed away. This is seen in Matthew 27 –

“Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. ⁵⁸ This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given to him. ⁵⁹ When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, ⁶⁰ and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed. ⁶¹ And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb.” Matthew 27:57-61

^{11 (con’t)} that he shall wash with water;

yirkhats bamayim – “he shall wash in the water.” He is defiled, it is evening, and he is now being purified. This typologically looks to the cleansing of Christ as is seen in Hebrews 10 –

“Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, ²⁰ by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, ²¹ and having a High Priest over the house of God, ²² let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Hebrews 10:19-22

Christ died, He entered the Most Holy Place, and we enter into His death and burial. In this, our spiritual bodies are washed clean.  What Israel did in the fleshly body, we participate in through Christ in a spiritual sense.

^{11 (con’t)} and when the sun sets, he may come into the camp.

The thing about this prohibition is that it doesn’t matter if it happens just at sundown (we’ll say 7:20pm) or five minutes before the guy wakes up (at 5:50am), the state of uncleanliness only lasts until the evening.

Therefore, it cannot be that the emission is unclean, but that it is typical of something else that is unclean. So, what is it concerning an emission of semen that so renders a person unclean?

As we saw in Leviticus, this precept is actually understood by many religions. It was considered so in ancient Egypt. It is so in Islam. Babylonians, Hindus, and others considered such an emission unclean.

Judaism to this day follows the precept in a cultural sense, especially those who piecemeal adhere to the law. Other religions as well understand this. It is something ingrained in the religious psyche. But it is not something Christians consider defiling.

The reason it is so is because the precept anticipates Christ. The bible implicitly teaches that the seed of man is how sin travels to the next generation of humans.

As all people (male and female alike) are born of man’s seed, all thus all inherit Adam’s sin through the male’s emission. Religions around the world intuitively know there is inherited sin, even if they don’t understand why it is so.

It is the reason why circumcision was given to Abraham. In cutting the male member, it pictured cutting the transfer of sin in humanity. The Lord even called circumcision a sign. But a sign is something that anticipates something else.

That which circumcision anticipates is Christ. Christ came born of a woman, but with no human father. Thus, He cut the line of sin because no human seed (bearing sin) from a father was transmitted to Him. The picture is fulfilled, the requirement in the law is ended. We are cleansed when we come to Christ’s perfection and His sacrifice, pictured by the coming of the new day at evening.

For the Israelite in the camp of the Lord, after washing, he remained unclean until evening. When the sun set, he could then reenter the camp. This was merely a ceremonial defilement of the conscience that typologically anticipated Christ. Now, in Him, our consciences are cleansed. We are free from the consciousness of sin, because we are freed from all sin through the work of Christ.

¹² “Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out;

The Hebrew of this and the next verse is very obscure. Here, it reads: v’yad tihyeh lekha mikhuts lamakhaneh v’yasata shamah khuts – “and hand shall have to you from outside to the camp and you go there outside.”

The word “hand” certainly is indicating a direction or location. In other words, if someone needs to go, he will ask the sentry of the camp, “Hey buddy, where do I go?” The response is with the hand – “over there.” Thus, most translations say, “place,” or “station.” In other words, a latrine.

¹³ and you shall have an implement among your equipment,

v’yated tihyeh lekha al azenekha – “and peg shall have to you upon your ear.” That doesn’t make must sense, does it? The idea is that a peg will be used as a handle, and the ear is being equated to something broad, or ear-shaped. In other words, Moses is describing a spade with a handle and a flat part for digging.

^{13 (con’t)} and when you sit down outside,

v’hayah b’shivtekha khuts “and it shall be in your sitting outside.” In other words, it is repeating the thought that one is to sit (meaning you know what) outside. The repetition is to ensure that the outside is where this is to occur. The lowest soldier to the highest chief, all were to go to the designated place and do their sitting out there

^{13 (con’t)} you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse.

v’khaphartah bah v’shavta eth tseatekha – “and you shall dig with it and turn and cover the coming out.” The wording, though a bit annoying to us from a literal translation, has an obvious meaning – “You are to take your spade, dig a hole, and then cover what just came out.”

In this, is another rare word, tseah. It signifies outcomings. It is found only here and in Ezekiel 4 –

“And you shall eat it as barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight.” Ezekiel 4:12

Just a couple verses later, we read this –

“So I said, ‘Ah, Lord God! Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth.’”
¹⁵ Then He said to me, ‘See, I am giving you cow dung instead of human waste, and you shall prepare your bread over it.’” Ezekiel 4:14, 15

It is cooking with the human waste that defiled the food Ezekiel was to eat. Thus, these outcomings were to be covered. And there is a specific reason for this…

¹⁴ For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp,

The idea here is still that of typological purity. The waste from a body is putrid and it is defiling (as seen in Ezekiel 4). To do this in the camp would then defile the camp. But the camp is the fighting force of the hosts of the Lord, and thus it was to remain undefiled. In this, the Lord would be among them…

^{14 (con’t)} to deliver you and give your enemies over to you;

The implication is that if the camp was defiled, the Lord would not be among them, and they would not be delivered. Rather, in offending the Lord, they would be delivered over to their enemies.

^{14 (con’t)} therefore your camp shall be holy,

v’hayah makhanekha qadosh – “And it shall be your camp holy.” The camp was to be set apart from all defilement and thus holy to the Lord. This is the main purpose of everything that has been said in these verses. The Lord is holy, and He will not walk among those who are unholy. The camp was to be kept pure…

*^14 (fin) that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.

The law is what sets the standard. To not adhere to the precept would be a violation of the law. The typology of the coming of Christ must be maintained, and therefore the purity of the camp – based on the standard set forth in the law – was to be adhered to. If not, as should be obvious, the Lord would turn away from them.

It is without any doubt at all that this set of verses was on Paul’s mind when he wrote his words to those at Corinth. Though divided by a chapter, the words run concurrently from the end of one chapter to the beginning of the next –

“For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
‘I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.’

¹⁷ Therefore

‘Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.’
¹⁸ ‘I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty.’” 2 Corinthians 6:16-18

…

“Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Corinthians 17:1

Everything that is said anticipates something that looks forward to the coming of the Messiah and of the true cleansing that can only come from Him. All of these earthly ordinances anticipated His coming, and in Him is found the fulfillment of them all.

He either actually fulfills the precepts, or He does so through fulfilled typology. Either way, it is only through Christ that we are truly cleansed and set apart to God. As this is so, we should separate ourselves, wholly and forever, from that which defiles.

He has already set us apart as holy through faith in His work, but it is our responsibility to act in accord with the word that has now been given and to conduct ourselves in a manner which is honoring of Him.

Therefore, may it be so. May we strive from day to day to walk in holiness, to act in righteousness, and to live in the hope of that day when our full, final, and forever glorification comes to be. May it be so, to the glory of the Lord who has already fulfilled that which restores us once again to our heavenly Father.

Closing Verse: “For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; ¹⁰ that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; ¹¹ strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; ¹² giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.” Colossians 1:9-12

Next Week: Deuteronomy 23:15-25 No way you will be bored, it is true… (Holy Conduct Before the Lord, Part II) (68^th Deuteronomy Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. But He also has expectations of you as He prepares you for entrance into His Land of Promise. So, follow Him and trust Him and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

Holy Conduct Before the Lord, Part I

“He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation
Shall not enter the assembly of the Lord
———-this is to be a holy nation

“One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord
Even to the tenth generation
None of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord
This is to be a holy nation

“An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly
Of the Lord; even to the tenth generation
None of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord
Forever: This is to be a holy nation

Because they did not meet you with bread and water
On the road when you came out of Egypt, so they did not do
And because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor
From Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you

Nevertheless the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam
But the Lord your God turned, because He is faithful and true
The curse into a blessing for you
Because the Lord your God loves you

You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity
All your days forever, so shall it be

“You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother
You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien
———- in his land
The children of the third generation born to them
May enter the assembly of the Lord so you now fully understand

“When the army goes out against your enemies for fighting
Then keep yourself from every wicked thing

If there is any man among you who becomes unclean
By some occurrence in the night
Then he shall go outside the camp
He shall not come inside the camp as is just and right

But it shall be, when evening comes
That he shall wash with water until all watered up and damp
And when the sun sets
He may come into the camp

Also you shall have a place outside the camp
———-where you may go out
And you shall have an implement among your equipment
———-so I say
And when you sit down outside
You shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse
———-so to you I relay

For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp

To deliver you and give your enemies over to you
———-as He has promised to do
Therefore your camp shall be holy
That He may see no unclean thing among you
———-and turn away from you

Lord God, turn our hearts to be obedient to Your word
Give us wisdom to be ever faithful to You
May we carefully heed each thing we have heard
Yes, Lord God may our hearts be faithful and true

And we shall be content and satisfied in You alone
We will follow You as we sing our songs of praise
Hallelujah to You; to us Your path You have shown
Hallelujah we shall sing to You for all of our days

Hallelujah and Amen…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.

² “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

³ “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever, ⁴ because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, 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 for you, because the Lord your God loves you. ⁶ You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.

⁷ “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. ⁸ The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.

⁹ “When the army goes out against your enemies, then keep yourself from every wicked thing. ¹⁰ If there is any man among you who becomes unclean by some occurrence in the night, then he shall go outside the camp; he shall not come inside the camp. ¹¹ But it shall be, when evening comes, that he shall wash with water; and when the sun sets, he may come into the camp.

¹² “Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; ¹³ and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse. ¹⁴ For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.

Deuteronomy 22:22-30
You Shall Put Away the Evil

On Monday the 14^th of June, I was struggling with motivation. I was in the ninth of ten days of antibiotics for a wound I had in my foot, and I was dragging. By 9am, I wasn’t sure if I could make it through this sermon, so to get some pity points from my friend Sergio, I sent him a message:

Do you have any motivation? For what? For me. I am completely lacking. If you have some to spare, I could use it.

About ten minutes later, I got an email with a folder to unzip. When I did, there was a short movie from Sergio. He and Rhoda had written out sticky notes and pasted them all over their house. They were little notes of motivation accompanied by some great, great spunky music as he went from one to another.

Eventually, the music came to a climax as the last sticky note took me to their refrigerator and a note about how soon the day would end and I would get a nice treat at that time. It’s just what I needed. If it had ended with a sticky note on their cat, I would not have survived the day. I thank them for getting me back into the groove. The sermon got done and so may the Lord be magnified!

As far as the sermon passage, it follows in the same general theme as the verses from the previous weeks – of purity, holiness, and that which is fair and just. The people were to abstain from sexual immorality, and there were to be consequences for those who failed to measure up.

Even today, in the church, we are to conduct ourselves properly in regard to the main issue set forth in our verses. Paul, Peter, and James all refer to adultery. At times, it may be speaking of the physical act. At others, it refers to spiritual adultery. But this shows us how intimately connected the two are in the mind of the Lord.

Text Verse: “Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” James 4:4

The thing about adultery is that nobody ever goes unscathed from it. We may think we did, but eventually, even those who did so in this life must face the Lord who judges all such things. And so, we need to be attentive to the covenant in which we exist – be it with our spouse or with our God.

For those who fail, and we all do at some point, the mercy of the Lord covers our failings. Thank God for Jesus Christ who took the penalty and the punishment that we deserve upon Himself. We are freed from this body of death, once and forever through His cross.

Because of this, shouldn’t we be more willing to be obedient to the word? Grace is granted, but it doesn’t offer us license in the process. That is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. And so let us live in purity and holiness in gratitude for what He has done!

Once again, such lessons as this are to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again and… May God speak to us through His word today and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. Cases of Adultery (verses 22-27)

²² “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband,

ki yimatse ish shokev im ishah beulat baal – “When is found man lying with woman married to husband.” As so often is the case, rather than a possibility – “If a man,” the words are set forth as a positive proposition – “When a man.” The words presuppose the wickedness of man and that such a thing will, in fact, occur. When it does, action to correct the infraction must take place.

Further, instead of the word ish, or man, the word baal, or master, is used. Both are translated as “husband,” but with baal there is conveyed the sense of ownership rights. The words therefore subtly convey the idea that a violation of property rights is a part of the crime. One is taking that which belongs to another.

Both the verb and the noun form of baal are used. The verb signifies to be master over and the noun signifies master or owner. Thus, to paraphrase this for understanding, we could say “a woman under the authority of her master.” To see the difference, Hosea 2 uses both words, thus making a play on the word Ba’al, meaning the heathen god of that name –

“And it shall be, in that day,”
Says the Lord,
“That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ [ishi]
And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’ [baali]
¹⁷ For I will take from her mouth the names of the Baals,
And they shall be remembered by their name no more.
¹⁸ In that day I will make a covenant for them
With the beasts of the field,
With the birds of the air,
And with the creeping things of the ground.
Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth,
To make them lie down safely.” Hosea 2:16-18

As far as the contents of this verse, the words substantially repeat, but rephrase, the thought of Leviticus 20:10 –

“The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10

As in Leviticus, Moses now repeats the command…

^{22 (con’t)} then both of them shall die—

u-metu gam shenehem – “and shall die also two of them.” One violated the rule of authority over her, and the other violated the principle of mastership belonging to his neighbor. In such a case, and because of the intimate nature of the act, they both are to die…

^{22 (con’t)} the man that lay with the woman, and the woman;

ha’ish ha’shokev im ha’issah – “the man the layer with the woman.” One might wonder why the same thing as the previous clause is repeated in a different way. The explanation may be as simple as the wickedness of the human heart, and the faithlessness of the judge of the case.

The nearest antecedent in the first clause is the master of the woman, not the man who lay with her. Therefore, the man who lay with the woman might say, “The law says that the woman and the husband are to die.”

As stupid as that sounds, the general rule of language could be twisted in this way – especially if the man who lay with the woman was best friends with the judge.

Also, the word ish is used here to describe the man rather than baal. The man has no right to authority over this woman. Moses is being direct, precise, and unambiguous in his words. It is something that, unfortunately, is needed because of the black heart of man. Removing these offenders serves a good purpose as well…

^{22 (con’t)} so you shall put away the evil from Israel.

The words are in the singular: u-biarta ha’ra miyisrael – “so you (singular) shall purge the evil from Israel.” Israel is collectively responsible, as a single entity, to purge away its evil.

Again, as he repeatedly has, Moses uses the word baar which gives the sense of consuming by fire, and thus purging. Without such an action, the nation would quickly devolve into greater and greater wickedness.

A moment ago, I gave a possible explanation for why Moses repeated the same thought in a different way. As incredible as it may sound, such a violation, or another type of violation of the law is not only possible, it should be considered inevitable. In fact, such a scenario is recorded right in Scripture, in John 8:2-11 –

Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. ³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

The law is clear and unambiguous, and yet when these people brought the woman before Jesus in an attempt to trap Him, they violated the very law they were attempting to set Him up with.

There are all kinds of ideas as to what Jesus wrote on the ground, but it may be as simple as Him writing out the words of law that He had spoken through Moses approximately 1400 years earlier. In realizing that they had broken the law, they could not claim that they were without sin.

A heavy weight is associated with the law. In the end, every person there stood as guilty as the woman they brought forward. But more, the Lord defined the law in a completely unexpected way when He spoke to them on the Mount of Beatitudes –

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:27, 28

Jesus could rightly say this without anyone challenging Him because the Tenth Commandment already set the standard. In saying, “You shall not covet,” the law thus noted that the heart was being evaluated by God. Coveting is something internal, known only to the coveter and God. And yet, the command is given.

Thus, adultery which is in the heart produces guilt, even if it is not acted upon. But more, for Israel who was as a wife to the Lord, there was the added guilt of national apostasy. The Lord addresses that time and time again in Scripture.

One such example is found in Ezekiel. It shows the deserved punishment for the people, and yet it also reveals to us the faithfulness of God who gave them less than they deserved –

‘Now then, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord! ³⁶ Thus says the Lord God: “Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them, ³⁷ surely, therefore, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, and all those you hated; I will gather them from all around against you and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. ³⁸ And I will judge you as women who break wedlock or shed blood are judged; I will bring blood upon you in fury and jealousy. ³⁹ I will also give you into their hand, and they shall throw down your shrines and break down your high places. They shall also strip you of your clothes, take your beautiful jewelry, and leave you naked and bare.
⁴⁰ “They shall also bring up an assembly against you, and they shall stone you with stones and thrust you through with their swords. ⁴¹ They shall burn your houses with fire, and execute judgments on you in the sight of many women; and I will make you cease playing the harlot, and you shall no longer hire lovers. ⁴² So I will lay to rest My fury toward you, and My jealousy shall depart from you. I will be quiet, and be angry no more. ⁴³ Because you did not remember the days of your youth, but agitated Me with all these things, surely I will also recompense your deeds on your own head,” says the Lord God. “And you shall not commit lewdness in addition to all your abominations.” Ezekiel 16:35-43

From the notion of adultery by a wife, next, a new scenario that is in line with it is addressed…

²³ “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband,

Again, the word isn’t so much “if” as “when.” The circumstance is where a virgin is betrothed. The word is aras, signifying a betrothal or engagement. This was a formal acknowledgment that a woman now belonged to a man with the same regard as if she was already married to him. If such is the case…

^{23 (con’t)} and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,

The reason at this point is irrelevant. However, the union came about. All that matters is that the betrothed wife of the man has been violated by another. This is the position Joseph was in concerning Mary. Until he was alerted to the truth of the matter, this is certainly what he thought –

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. ¹⁹ Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.” Matthew 1:18, 19

For Joseph, there were surely two and possibly three reasons for being called “a just man.” The first is that he is of the tribe of Judah, and thus could possibly be a father of the Messiah. This would have been the hope of anyone of the line of David, and this scandal would damage any such hopes.

A second possible reason is that if he was one to adhere to the law and/or who understood the lessons of the books of wisdom, having a woman like this into the future would only increase his grief and turn out to be a thorn in his side. In this, it would not be wise to hold on to such a wife.

A third, and obvious, reason is seen in the words “not wanting to make her a public example.” The reason for that is explained in the next verse…

²⁴ then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city,

The words in this and the next clause are in the plural – “You all are to do this thing.” The gate is the place of judgment. In the disclosing of their actions, the judgment is determined already. As such, punishment is to then be meted out…

^{24 (con’t)} and you shall stone them to death with stones,

Stoning is the set penalty for adultery, and this is to be considered adultery, even if the woman is only betrothed. She was promised to a man, the agreement was made, and nobody else, including her, had the right to violate the agreement. But she did implicitly, even if she was forced. As it says…

^{24 (con’t)} the young woman because she did not cry out in the city,

Cities in Israel at this time were small, normally enclosed in walls, and the houses would be closely arrayed. If she had been raped, there is no doubt that it would have been heard. Even if he had his hand over her mouth, eventually his hand would be removed. Thus, it is implied that she consented to the act. For this, she is to die. Also…

^{24 (con’t)} and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife;

The word eshet, or wife, is used. Thus, it is made explicit, in the law itself, that a betrothal carried the same weight and responsibility as after the marriage took place. Like the man in verse 22, he has taken a man’s wife that did not belong to him, and for it, he must die.

^{24 (con’t)} so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Now, the words return to the singular – “so you (singular) shall put away the evil from among you (singular).” The nation as a whole is directed to take the action that is necessary to remove the evil.

And again, it is the same expression as in verse 22, except there it said, “put away the evil from Israel.” Here it says, “put away the evil from among you.” The evil in Israel was to be purged away, as if by fire. Thus, there is a purifying nature to the stoning of such offenders.

²⁵ “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside,

Here the state of the woman is the same as the previous verse, but instead of ba’ir, or “in the city,” it emphatically says v’im ba’sadeh, or “But if, in the field.” Thus, it signifies that they are outside of the city walls. If it is in such a place…

^{25 (con’t)} and the man forces her and lies with her,

v’hekheziq bah – “And forces her.” Unlike such a case in the city where no such action is assumed, the woman in this case is presumed to have been raped. As such…

^{25 (con’t)} then only the man who lay with her shall die.

A separation is made between the man and the woman, and she is given the benefit of the doubt that it was completely beyond her control. Moses makes this law and states it explicitly. The people cannot go beyond what is written unless other evidence is available. As he next says…

²⁶ But you shall do nothing to the young woman;

Here, the words are in the singular again, “But you (singular) shall do nothing.” The woman, by stated law, is not to be stoned. Thus, Israel the people, as a whole, are restrained from taking action against her. The assumption of innocence is given to her, and it must be maintained. As Moses next says…

^{26 (con’t)} there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death,

The Hebrew reads no “sin-death.” There are sins, and there are sins. In the case of adultery, the sin is a sin where death is the expected and mandated punishment. In order to impress upon them that this is expected, Moses gives a real-life example for them to consider…

^{26 (con’t)} for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.

This takes the reader back to Deuteronomy 19:11-12 –

“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, ¹² then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.”

Such a person is deemed a murderer and is not to be spared. He purposefully waited for him, came upon him, and struck him. Likewise, the woman was preyed upon and had no chance to flee from her assailant. The man is as guilty as one who commits murder, and the woman is free from the stain of guilt.

With even that stated, Moses goes further to ensure that the woman is considered innocent and cannot be harmed, speaking in advance of how the law is to deem such a situation…

²⁷ For he found her in the countryside,

The first protection: Moses overlooks any hint of impropriety in the woman. In saying, “For he found her,” it implies that she was as prey to him. The fact is that she could have gone out into the field and met a man, but that is not entertained here.

As this is the law, it must then be adhered to as it is written. Next, Moses continues to anticipate the circumstance…

^{27 (con’t)} and the betrothed young woman cried out,

tsaaqah hanaarah hamorasah – “cried out the young woman, the betrothed.” The second protection: Moses anticipates the situation for the woman, thus giving any woman in such a circumstance the benefit of the doubt. The weight of the law is on her side.

^{27 (con’t)} but there was no one to save her.

The third protection: Moses, in advance of entering Canaan, speaks on behalf of a woman in such a situation. Not only was she preyed upon, and not only did she cry out, but she also had no one to save her from the man’s attacks, including herself. She was defenseless and totally subjected to him.

As far as Joseph, and what the words “a just man” means, as well as his not wanting to “make her a public example,” some reasons were given earlier, but it is still somewhat speculative. However, the account in Luke is clear. Mary lived in a city and the angel came to her in her house –

“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ²⁷ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” Luke 1:26-28

We are not told of any conversations between Joseph and Mary, but one of them was certainly a plea of innocence – something surely claimed by many others throughout history.

Beyond this, we cannot impute any type of wrongdoing to Joseph in regard to neglecting the law as it is written. The words stand without further explanation except that it says –

“But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. ²¹ And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Matthew 1:20, 21

With these three cases complete, there is another to consider, but one which does not involve the bonds of marriage…

The law is written, and the deed is done
There is no hope for one who has acted in this way
What was only a moment of temporary fun
Will cost you your life this very day

What value did I gain when I did this thing?
My life will surely end this very day
What I thought would make me laugh and sing
Has brought me to my end by acting in this way

It can’t be that all of them are without sin!
Why are they all leaving? They know what I have done
A moment ago, I thought I was done in
By I have been brought from death to life by God’s perfect Son

II. The Father’s Rights (verses 28-30)

²⁸ “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed,

Now a circumstance similar to the previous one, but with the difference of the virgin not being betrothed is given. If this was not presented as such, there would be a void in how to handle the matter.

But more, the way that the matter is handled is given to impress upon the mind the high importance of the betrothal and/or marriage of a woman. Once such an action takes place, she assumes a completely different category than a woman who is not betrothed or married.

Some may find this unfair, especially for what happens to the woman in this case, but it is given to demonstrate and highlight the immense importance of the husband/wife relationship. It is not something to be taken lightly.

In this case, a woman is a virgin, but she is not betrothed, and a man finds her…

^{28 (con’t)} and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,

It is a different word than that used in verse 25, but it is rightly translated as “seizes her.” He is forcing himself on her. This is a similar law to that already recorded in Exodus 22 –

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. ¹⁷ If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.” Exodus 22:16, 17

There, it says he entices her. The difference between enticing and seizing does not seem to be significant in regard to the overall principle and the punishment imposed. It instead appears one account is simply repeating and further defining the other.

Whether she was enticed or forced, she is not bound to another man, and she is under the authority of her father. If a man takes her in such a case, thus stripping her of her virginity…

²⁹ then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver,

This is the “bride price” as is stated in Exodus 22. The difference is that the Lord mandated a bride price, whatever it may be, at that time. Now, Moses builds upon that and mandates what that bride price will be.

This does not mean that the bride price for any virgin of Israel is fifty shekels of silver. It means that in this case, it is the amount set. In other words, someone may have an exceptionally beautiful daughter and require more. Or he may have one still waiting to get her beauty on, and he may require less.

However, in this case – regardless as to any other factor – this man must pay as required by the set law. He has no choice in the matter. This amount, fifty shekels, was the highest amount required for the consecration vow of a person in Leviticus 27.

It was set for a man in the prime of his life, between twenty and sixty years of age (Leviticus 27:3). In other words, this act by the man against the father’s daughter is noted as an exceptionally grievous offense. The working years of the father were, in essence, stolen from him. Therefore, the father is to receive this as fair compensation…

^{29 (con’t)} and she shall be his wife

Although this may sound out of place, and even cruel, it is actually appropriate for the society where a woman may be betrothed even at a very young age.

In fact, the betrothal period certainly included a set age before which she could not be given away for the sake of consummating the marriage. In this case, she was not even yet betrothed, and yet she has been deflowered. As such, she would be hard-pressed to find a husband that would treat her properly as a wife. Therefore, this is actually a protection for the woman as is seen in the next words…

^{29 (con’t)} because he has humbled her;

It is the same word used in verse 24. There, the betrothed woman has been humbled, thus depriving the husband of what belonged to him. As the betrothed didn’t cry out, her humbling was as much her fault as the man’s.

In this case, the woman is humbled in a society where her chances of happiness in marriage are significantly reduced. Therefore, the man is required to assume responsibility for his conduct and to marry the woman.

What is probable here in Deuteronomy is that the principle set forth in Exodus still applies. If the father absolutely refuses to allow him to marry his daughter, then the matter would be settled with the fifty shekels of silver.

In this, the father could possibly obtain another bride price, but not as a virgin. And further, he could also ensure that whoever married her would be a suitable husband in the process. If the father permits the marriage to the man to go forward…

^{29 (con’t)} he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

In addition to paying this exceptional amount of fifty shekels, the man will be obligated to remain married to the woman for his entire life.

What is likely, but which is unstated, is that such a marriage would be subject to his treating her faithfully in that marriage. She would have the weight of the law on her side to ensure that she was not simply pushed aside and neglected.

The protections for the woman were especially strong in the Israelite society. They surely stand above the laws of other societies of the time in their treatment of such situations. With these cases complete, the chapter ends with one more verse concerning sexual relations…

³⁰ “A man shall not take his father’s wife,

No man was to have relations with his father’s wife. This is true in any circumstance. In some Mideastern cultures, if a man had a young wife in his old age, the son would assume her as his own upon her death. Any such thing was absolutely forbidden. This point of law has already been stated as a sin punishable by death –

“The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness.’ Leviticus 18:8

“The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:11

To uncover the nakedness of a father’s wife was to uncover the father’s own nakedness. It is considered a perversion. So much is this the case that it will also be seen as worthy of a curse –

“Cursed is the one who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s bed.” Deuteronomy 27:20

*^{30 (fin)} nor uncover his father’s bed.

v’lo yegaleh kenaph abiv – “and no uncover wing his father.” The wing signifies the hems of a garment. When Ruth offered herself to Boaz, she used the same term –

“Now it happened at midnight that the man was startled, and turned himself; and there, a woman was lying at his feet. ⁹ And he said, ‘Who are you?’
So she answered, ‘I am Ruth, your maidservant. Take your maidservant under your wing, for you are a close relative.’” Ruth 3:8, 9

It is also the same term that the Lord used in Ezekiel 16 when referring to Jerusalem –

 “‘When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,’ says the Lord God.” Ezekiel 16:8

This term then signifies the rights, authority, and possessions of the father. In other words, it would extend to any woman, even a concubine. Thus, it shows that what Absalom did was a violation of this point of law –

“And Ahithophel said to Absalom, ‘Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you are abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be strong.’ ²² So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.” 2 Samuel 16:21, 22

It is also certainly the point of law that Solomon used to convict and execute his brother Adonijah. He came with subtlety and asked Bathsheba to convince Solomon to give King David’s concubine Abishag to him.

Solomon saw through his words, knowing that he would use having her as a pretext to make a claim on the throne. Therefore, because this law forbade such an act, Solomon had a reason to execute him –

“And King Solomon answered and said to his mother, ‘Now why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also—for he is my older brother—for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.’ ²³ Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, ‘May God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life! ²⁴ Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!’²⁵ So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck him down, and he died.” 2 Kings 2:22-25

Some are meant to die, and yet they are given life
Some will die without any hope
The difference is who ends the strife
For some, total deliverance is the scope

Every debt must be paid as surely as the sun does rise
Nothing will be overlooked on the judgment day
But for those in Christ, eternal life is the prize
Those who have seen the good and pursued the right way

Only in Him does the promise hold fast
And without Him, nothing will satisfy the debt that must be paid
Until your end, the time of favor is not past
So come to Christ and the wrath towards you will be stayed

III. Pictures of Christ

Because the various scenarios follow the same theme as last week, that of honor and purity, there is no need to give minute detail in how each of these precepts anticipates the work of Christ. But, in short, it is evident when considered.

The first incident was adultery by a man and a woman. Israel has already been shown to be the spouse of the Lord last week. The Lord is said in Ezekiel 16 to be married to Jerusalem. Jerusalem stands for the people who fall under her scope.

The Lord spread his wing over them, and they became His. In their adultery with others, both should be destroyed. And, indeed, those who committed adultery with her suffered their destruction. But because of His covenant with Israel, Christ took their punishment instead.

The next two instances follow in the same thread of thought. Whether in the city or in the country, a betrothed woman is violated. In both instances, the man is to be executed. In the city, that includes the woman. In the country, it is not to be so.

However, as before, Christ took the penalty of the woman in the city. In the other instance, she is violated but not held responsible. One can easily see the church in this. The church is betrothed to Christ, and yet, she has been violated –

“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. ³ But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. ⁴ For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!” 2 Corinthians 11:2-4

In some cases, the violating was accepted and voluntary – in the city. In other words, choosing to allow an apostate to lead one away. In the other, the violating was involuntary – in the field. In other words, being led astray in an involuntary manner.

In both instances, the offender (represented by the man) will be destroyed. In the case of the woman in the city – as before – Christ has already paid the price for her transgression. She cannot be punished a second time. In the case of the woman in the country, believers who have been violated in this manner (beyond their control), no charge is brought against them.

The last proposition is more difficult to discern its meaning, but it is based on sexual contact with a woman who is not betrothed. Being consistent, this would mean she is not a part of the body of Christ. What seems likely is that it would refer to an apostate body, such as the JWs or the Mormons.

The number fifty is that of jubilee or deliverance. A payment of deliverance to the father is made, signifying that there is no longer the connection between the two. Further, the note that the husband must remain married to the woman forever seems to imply that an apostate body will always remain so. It has been freed from righteousness to live with the husband that defiled her.

The final verse spoke of the sanctity of the father’s bed and of that which is under his authority. Unlike the faithless son, Israel, who constantly is recorded as attempting to usurp their Father’s authority, Christ never tried to do so. Rather, He was obedient to the Father, and, through His finished work, He received His own bride through the New Covenant.

In the end, the lesson of Chapter 22 is, above all else, that of honor and purity. The individual sections involve real laws that governed Israel, but they anticipate spiritual truths in God’s redemptive narrative.

Each one is given to ensure that every aspect of the human condition, as it stands in relation to God, is covered. The laws of Israel were given to govern potential scenarios that may never have come about, but the precepts which are stated are given to cover actual scenarios that have occurred, and continue to occur, in relation to spiritual matters.

And every positive spiritual matter is covered by one overarching thought – that Jesus Christ has taken care of it. It is only through Him that such things are resolved. For those who are not a part of what He is doing, they are wedded to another.

The only way to have this corrected is to come under the wings of our heavenly Father by coming to Christ who has fulfilled these things for His people. There is no religious expression that can bring us back to Him apart from Christ.

Be wise, be discerning, and make the call. He is waiting to forgive every trespass and every failing if we simply accept that He has opened this avenue for us. He has sent His Messiah into the world. His name is JESUS.

Closing Verse: “I will betroth you to Me forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me
In righteousness and justice,
In lovingkindness and mercy;
²⁰ I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,
And you shall know the Lord.” Hosea 2:19, 20

Next Week: Deuteronomy 23:1-14 How will you act toward… toward the Glorious One?… (Holy Conduct Before the Lord, Part I) (67^th Deuteronomy Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. But He also has expectations of you as He prepares you for entrance into His Land of Promise. So, follow Him and trust Him and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

You Shall Put Away the Evil

“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband
Then both of them shall die, so to you I tell
The man that lay with the woman and the woman
So you shall put away the evil from Israel

“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband
And a man finds her in the city and lies with her
Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city
And you shall stone them to death with stones, for sure

The young woman because
She did not cry out in the city, such she failed to do
And the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife
So you shall put away the evil from among you.

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman
In the countryside, by and by
And the man forces her and lies with her
Then only the man who lay with her shall die

But you shall do nothing to the young woman
There is in the young woman deserving of death no sin
For just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him
Even so is this matter; this is what has been…

For he found her in the countryside
And the betrothed young woman cried out
But there was no one to save her
No one heard her shout

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin
Who is not betrothed; of this there is no doubt
And he seizes her and lies with her
And they are found out

Then the man who lay with her
Shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver
———-yes, this is what he pays
And she shall be his wife because he has humbled her
He shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days

“A man shall not take his father’s wife, as I have to you said
Nor uncover his father’s bed

Lord God, turn our hearts to be obedient to Your word
Give us wisdom to be ever faithful to You
May we carefully heed each thing we have heard
Yes, Lord God may our hearts be faithful and true

And we shall be content and satisfied in You alone
We will follow You as we sing our songs of praise
Hallelujah to You; to us Your path You have shown
Hallelujah we shall sing to You for all of our days

Hallelujah and Amen…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

²² “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel.

²³ “If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, ²⁴ then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

²⁵ “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. ²⁶ But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. ²⁷ For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

²⁸ “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, ²⁹ then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

³⁰ “A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor uncover his father’s bed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
I Found That She Was Not a Virgin

Today, we have two sections in this one passage. The first proposes the exact opposite conclusion as the second. There is a daughter who has been accused of wrongdoing, and yet she has not done wrong.

Then, there is the daughter who has been so accused and it is found out that there is no evidence of her innocence. Imagine if the fate of the daughter in the first instance was tied up in the fate of the second daughter.

“How could that be?” you might ask. Well, it could be and it, in some measure that you will soon discover, is. It all comes down to the simple idea of what God is doing in the world to reconcile us to Himself.

While we are thinking about this, doesn’t it seem obvious to you that if a culture kept the evidences of a woman’s virginity as a protection for her that nobody would ever dare to accuse a woman as proposed here?

If it is so, and it is, then why would the Lord even bother putting such a passage into His word? It seems comparable to something like, “If you put your finger into a wall socket, you will get electrocuted.”

When people know what that means, they wouldn’t think of putting their finger into one. It’s so obvious that it should make you wonder. But… there is a good purpose for doing so.

Text Verse: “Sing, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O Israel!
Be glad and rejoice with all your heart,
O daughter of Jerusalem!
¹⁵ The Lord has taken away your judgments,
He has cast out your enemy.
The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst;
You shall see disaster no more.” Zephaniah 3:14, 15

The daughter of Jerusalem has her judgments taken away from her. She shall see disaster no more. Well, that hasn’t happened yet, but it shall come to pass. And no, that is not symbolically speaking of the church or something.

It is speaking to any who lives in Jerusalem. How can we know this? Because the same terminology is spoken of concerning Gallim, Moab, Tarshish, Sidon, Babylon, the Chaldeans, and so on. It is a term that speaks of a specific place. In this case, it is again and again referring to the earthy, not the heavenly, Jerusalem.

So much for replacement theology. The word requires study and tender care to draw out what is correct concerning its many theologies. That is why it is so important to know the word. Once you know the word, you can then make right judgments about the theologies that you are presented with from day to day.

Get into the word, consider the word, and meditate on the word. It is a lesson that is for sure to be found in His superior word. And so, let us turn to that precious word once again and… May God speak to us through His word today and may His glorious name ever be praised.

I. I Gave My Daughter to This Man (verses 13-19)

The passage now introduced is intended to protect the society from miscreants who would disrupt the proper moral order of the people. It is intended first to protect the honor of a woman who had done nothing wrong from an uncaring and malicious man. The next verses will protect the man from a woman who is a deceiver.

Both of these will affect the people who are aware of the circumstances, either positively or negatively. If such a man is allowed to act in the manner set forth, a state of tyranny over women would result. If a woman described later was allowed to act in the manner set forth, the morality of the population would – inevitably – decline.

As with the previous verses, these speak of purity, holiness, and that which is fair and just. For now, the words are directed to the uncaring and malicious man…

¹³ “If any man takes a wife,

ki yiqah ish ishah – “When takes man woman.” For such a limited number of words, much is implied. A process of obtaining a wife has been pursued, be it through love, making an agreement with the father, or some other event that brought them together.

Regardless, it isn’t just that a man saw a woman and married her five minutes later. There was an involved process of which marriage is the result. Because there was this process, it was the man’s responsibility to be aware of what he was getting into. Once he is married, then the next step of the process occurs…

^{13 (con’t)} and goes in to her,

This is the biblically acceptable context for a man going into, meaning having sex with, a woman. He went through the process, he agreed to whatever terms were set forth, and he openly married her in accord with the established rules of the society and culture.

One would expect that he followed the protocols, and in his uniting with her, he would be happy. However, something else arises…

^{13 (con’t)} and detests her,

The word is sane. It means “hate.” What should have been a happy state of love, especially because he went through the process and should not have been unaware of what was coming, turns out to be a condition of hate.

An account of such a “love” turning pretty much immediately to “hate” is found in 2 Samuel 13 where King David’s son Amnon “loved” his half-sister Tamar.

He wanted her to the point of being sick, and then when he forced himself on her, it immediately follows by saying, “Then Amnon hated her exceedingly, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Arise, be gone!’” (vs. 15).

In this, we can see that the word “love” is – in his case –closely connected with our thought of “lust.” And the word “hate” is well reflected in the thought of “detest.” Amnon got what he lusted after, and in his getting, he no longer desired her.

Amnon failed to take everything into consideration, and he found that what he wanted didn’t meet his expectations. Such is true with the man in the proposition set before us now. Because of this…

¹⁴ and charges her with shameful conduct,

v’sam lah aliloth devarim – “And lays upon her actions of words.” A new word is introduced here, alilah. It signifies actions or deeds. The context decides if they are positive or negative. For example, it says this of the Lord in Psalm 66 –

“Come and see the works of God;
He is awesome in His doing toward the sons of men.” Psalm 66:5

In the case of this verse, the NKJV paraphrases the intent to explain it by saying, “with shameful conduct.” In this…

^{14 (con’t)} and brings a bad name on her,

v’hotsi aleha shem ra – “and brings upon her name evil.” The idea of a name is that of character. To bring upon a woman an evil name is to identify her character as evil. In this case, the man has brought into question the woman’s deeds, thus imputing to her evil character. He next defines what he means…

^{14 (con’t)} and says, ‘I took this woman,

In taking a woman, there is inevitably an expectation. If someone marries her under the assumption that she is a good cook, he would expect tasty dinners. If he married her because she was said to be a quiet, hard worker, he wouldn’t be happy if she sat around all day and talked. In the case of this man, he had expected one thing, but now claims he got another…

^{14 (con’t)} and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’

va’eqrav eleha v’lo matsati lah bethulim – “and I came near to her, and no I found her virginities.” The word bethulim is a plural noun. As such, some translations say, “tokens of her virginity,” but that is more of an explanation than a translation.

What it means is there are evidences of her being a virgin which are collectively termed “virginities.” She was lacking these things according to him, and thus he is implying she has been out playing the harlot. Because of such an accusation…

¹⁵ then the father and mother of the young woman

Both parents are mentioned, probably because it would be the mother’s responsibility to maintain the item next to be presented. This seems likely, because this is the only time she is mentioned in the passage. After this, the father is the center of attention in this regard. He is the head of the household and stands as representative of it.

^{15 (con’t)} shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity

The words, “the evidence of” are inserted. It more closely says, “and bring out the young woman’s virginities.” Like the Hebrew word water (mayim) which is a plural construct, so is this word – “virginities.” It doesn’t mean there is more than one virginity, but that what is presented is, like water, a collective thing.

This evidence of her virginity would be a cloth that she laid on when the marriage was consummated. It was bloodied and then saved as an evidence of the consummation of the marriage. It is this that is brought forth and presented…

^{15 (con’t)} to the elders of the city at the gate.

The elders are those who make the moral judgments, the gate is the place where judgment is rendered. At this place, and before these who render the decisions concerning such matters…

¹⁶ And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders,

This is unlike the stubborn and rebellious son of Chapter 18. There, both parents were there to testify against him. In this case, it is the father alone who testifies.

This is because an accusation against the daughter was implicitly an accusation against his good name. He is the one to receive the dowry, and it is he who had assured the man that his daughter was an acceptable wife, being a virgin.

As such, he presented her to him being confident of this. Knowing that the accusation is false, he proceeds, saying…

^{16 (con’t)} ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her.

As before, the word is sane, signifying hatred. For whatever reason, he decided he is not pleased with her and in order to get rid of her…

¹⁷ Now he has charged her with shameful conduct,

In Chapter 24, we will see that man is given the right to divorce his wife. The right, according to the verse, is given “because he has found some uncleanness in her.” The word translated as “uncleanness” literally means “nakedness.”

Nothing is specified beyond that, and it opens up a host of possible excuses for divorce. So, one might question, “Why doesn’t this guy just divorce his wife if he doesn’t like her?” The answer goes in one of two directions.

It could be that he paid the dowry price for her and wants it back after finding out he has a wife that is a dud. Or it could be selfish pride in that he doesn’t want to look like the person who would flippantly divorce his wife. He wants vindication that the problem rests with her and not with him.

For one of these, or some other worthless reason, he decides to manipulate the situation, ensuring that the fault of the failed relationship rests on the wife, not on himself. In this, he is…

^{17 (con’t)} saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’

In making such a claim, it implies he wants something from the father. It would be like us buying a car and finding out it was a lemon. When that happens, we will return to the place where it was obtained, and there try to strike a deal to get compensation.

It appears that this is what is on the mind of the person. Otherwise, there were certainly other options available to him. Despite the accusations, though, the father is able to vindicate himself through the evidences he possessed concerning her virginity. Therefore…

^{17 (con’t)} And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

Although this seems like a far-fetched thing to be done, scholars note that this practice has been recorded in Egypt and Syria among the Bedouins and the Muslims, even up to modern times. This is done to protect the honor of the family and the life of the daughter.

The fact that blood does not always shed at such times does not negate that this is a valid practice. Girls were generally married off at much younger ages than we might find tolerable today, even at ages around or before the early teens.

And if a girl had an unlikely accident where the proof of her virginity was torn, the parents would have been aware of it and would apprise the prospective husband that such had occurred. There is no reason to dismiss the Bible, as some commentators do, over a passage like this.

For now, the custom of presenting the virginities to the elders has proven that the husband’s story is false. He has disrespected his wife, the family of his wife, and himself in the process. And so…

¹⁸ Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him;

The word translated as “punish” is yasar. It means to chastise, discipline, admonish, and so on. It can be literal or figurative punishment. As such, the exact punishment is left unstated. Some Jewish commentators, like Josephus and others, say that he would be beaten with a rod.

What is likely is that because the punishment isn’t defined by Moses, the elders of the city – knowing the man and his propensities – would determine the punishment according to their wisdom and his past record. Regardless of what their determination is, Moses does add more which is specific…

¹⁹ and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver

Of this, Albert Barnes incorrectly says –

“The fact that the penalties attached to bearing false witness against a wife are fixed and comparatively light indicates the low estimation and position of the woman at that time.” Albert Barnes

In other words, he is saying that this is such a small amount of money that it demonstrates the low status of women under the law. This appears to be faulty thinking. In verse 22:29, if a man essentially rapes a young virgin who is not betrothed, the father is to be compensated for it with fifty of silver.

As such, it would imply that fifty of silver would be the outside price for a dowry. In other words, a normal dowry would be expected to be that or less. However, this person is being fined double the maximum expected dowry.

Further, the valuation of a male between twenty and sixty years of age who is consecrated by a vow to the Lord was fifty shekels (Leviticus 27:3).

Rather than a low estimation of women, this highlights her importance to the family. In discrediting this man’s daughter which also brought his own name into question, this high fine is imposed upon the man. From there…

^{19 (con’t)} and give them to the father of the young woman,

The father has now received a dowry for the daughter, and he has also received double the maximum anticipated amount for a dowry as well. As such, he possesses a triple portion. Likewise, the accuser has essentially ended up paying three times for a wife because of his unacceptable conduct. This is…

^{19 (con’t)} because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel.

The father receives the money because it is his household in which she was raised, and it is his name that is implicitly disgraced through the accusation. The idea is that if he has a non-virgin daughter, he failed as the head of the house.

Culturally, the words “a bad name on a virgin of Israel” can certainly be directly equated to “he is a bad father in Israel.” With his name restored, the honor of the daughter is restored, and it is restored permanently…

^{19 (con’t)} And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

The words are emphatic: v’lo tihyeh l’ishah lo yukal l’shalekhah kal yama – “and to him she shall be to wife; no able to send her out all his days.” He is permanently stuck with her for what he has done.

Although it is not recorded as such, because this is a judgment of law, it is certain that she would be able to go to the gates anytime her husband failed to faithfully perform his marital duties, and she could make a case against him. He truly shoved his proverbially foot into his mouth.

What are you accusing her of?
Just what are you trying to say she has done?
I may just pull off my glove
And go a round or two with you, son

You have my daughter, and I don’t interfere at all
But when you bring my honor in, it just isn’t right
Oh! The nerve. Oh! The gall
Surely, you are looking for one heck of a fight

We can testify that she was pure and undefiled
On the day she entered your house
The blood is the evidence, so don’t get me riled
She is yours forever now; she is your forever spouse

II. To Play the Harlot (verses 20 & 21)

²⁰ “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman,

The claim has been made, and the man making it would be aware of the law. If he knew that his claim was false, it would mean that he would be an idiot (like the guy in the previous verses) to make such a claim at all.

Therefore, with firsthand knowledge of the matter, and knowing that no evidences will be found, the matter is presented. When no evidences are produced, the matter is considered true. When such is determined to be the case…

²¹ then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house,

Instead of taking her to the gates of the city, the girl is brought rather to the door of her father’s house. She is guilty, but in this, the guilt of the girl is implicitly also placed upon the house of the father, evidenced by the judgment being rendered there. Once at the door, it says…

^{21 (con’t)} and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones,

Although a different word for the act of stoning is used here, the words are very similar to those concerning the disobedient son in the previous chapter –

“Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones.” Deuteronomy 21:21

A son who is disobedient to his parents, and a daughter who would presume to play the harlot are treated in the same manner.

^{21 (con’t)} because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel,

The offense is ultimately against the whole. Because of what has happened, Israel has been tainted. The word used is nevalah, meaning senseless or disgraceful. It comes from the verb navel meaning senseless or foolish. It has only been used once before, in Genesis 34 when Shechem, the son of Hamor violated Jacob’s daughter –

“And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done.” Genesis 34:7

The same terminology is used in both accounts, b’yisrael, or “in Israel,” because both convey the same thought. A virgin of Israel has been defiled. In this case, the girl dared…

^{21 (con’t)} to play the harlot in her father’s house.

The verb zanah means to commit fornication or to be a harlot. The daughter failed to uphold the honor of the law, regardless as to what the conditions of the household were.

In this, it brought a stain upon the name of Israel. Evil has been committed, and the law calls for the punishment to be meted out in order for there to be peace once again…

*^{21 (fin)} So you shall put away the evil from among you.

ubiarta ha’ra miqirbekha – “And you shall burn the evil from your midst.” The word is ba’ar, a common one in Deuteronomy, signifying to consume by fire or by eating. In this, the idea is to completely purge away the evil.

The clause is word for word and letter for letter identical to the clause of Deuteronomy 21:21 when referring to the disobedient and rebellious son.

She needs to die for what she has done
She has disgraced our name and the name of Israel
The law will press down on her like stones, a ton
She forsook the path to heaven, and chose the one to hell

There is no blood to witness for her
There is none who has stood up for what she has done
Her end will not be pretty, that is for sure
The law will press down on her like stone, a ton

There was an offer of peace, there at the Door
And it could have restored her name in Israel
She would have been granted life and so much more
But she forsook the path to heaven, and chose the one to hell

III. Pictures of Christ

The nine verses of today’s passage certainly speak first and foremost of honor. In the first section, the honor of the father is on prominent display. Even if the daughter appears to be the center of focus, this is only incidentally so.

What is said to have occurred was in the father’s house, and thus it is a reflection on him, especially because he would have received a dowry for her. Once the matter was established that the daughter was, in fact, a virgin, it is the father who is recompensed for the false accusations.

And more, the woman is given a permanent protection under the law. The lying husband may never send her out. She will remain his wife all his days.

On the other hand, if the daughter is found to be guilty of harlotry, she is to be stoned to death.

The virgin daughter represents the people of Jerusalem, and thus – by implication – the people of Judah. This is seen first in 2 Kings 19, and the same account is substantially repeated in Isaiah 37 –

“Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord God of Israel: “Because you have prayed to Me against Sennacherib king of Assyria, I have heard.’” ²¹ This is the word which the Lord has spoken concerning him:
‘The virgin, the daughter of Zion,
Has despised you, laughed you to scorn;
The daughter of Jerusalem
Has shaken her head behind your back!’” 2 Kings 19:20, 21

This is certain because Lamentations uses the same terms, “daughter of Jerusalem” and “virgin daughter of Zion” (Lamentations 2:13). But it also uses the term “virgin daughter of Judah” (Lamentations 1:15). Jerusalem is the seat of power, and thus representative of Judah, the people.

These terms are set forth as an ideal. They are the people of God and live among the house of God where the Lord dwells. As they are reckoned among His house, they are collectively given this term, the virgin daughter.

Logically, if there is a virgin daughter, then there is a Father of that daughter. That is the point of calling them the virgin daughter. The purpose of virginity is, above all, purity of the seed of the people. They were to maintain this because it is through their seed that Messiah would come.

This is seen in the fact that not long after Jacob was named Israel, the account of Shechem and Dinah was mentioned. In what occurred, it said that Shechem had done a disgraceful thing b’yisrael, or in Israel. The daughter, the people of Israel, were to remain undefiled.

However, it is true that the collective group known as Israel, or Jerusalem the city, are also noted as the spouse of Israel at times, such as in Ezekiel 16 –

“You erected your shrine at the head of every road, and built your high place in every street. Yet you were not like a harlot, because you scorned payment. ³² You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband. ³³ Men make payment to all harlots, but you made your payments to all your lovers, and hired them to come to you from all around for your harlotry. ³⁴ You are the opposite of other women in your harlotry, because no one solicited you to be a harlot. In that you gave payment but no payment was given you, therefore you are the opposite.” Ezekiel 16:31-34

Such terms, son, daughter, virgin daughter, wife, and so on are given to show the various relationships that exist between the Lord and His people. Being a virgin daughter is an ideal concerning the people.

If a daughter is found to have committed harlotry, she was to be taken to the door of her father’s house and there stoned to death. This was to be the penalty for harlotry and doing a disgraceful thing in Israel.

However, it is seen innumerable times that this is exactly what Judah and Jerusalem did. Despite this, and even after being punished for their sins, the Lord still calls them the daughter of Jerusalem and the virgin daughter of Zion.

The ideal lives on because the daughter continues to exist. She is punished for her deeds, but not completely destroyed. This is where Christ steps in. The seed of the daughter remains and eventually Jesus comes, born to that group –

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.” Zechariah 9:9

As the King, it is He who represents Jerusalem, and Jerusalem represents Judah. The people are the daughter. In His representation of them, He takes the penalty for their sins, dying in their stead.

As I said of this daughter, reflective of the people, she is guilty, but in this, the guilt of the girl is implicitly also placed upon the house of the father. God’s name is tarnished by the actions of the people and so He will take action to correct this through Christ.

First, the offender was to be brought to the door of the father’s house. This is what Christ did. He is the Door to His Father’s house (John 10:9). It is in His capacity as the One, and the Place, to receive the guilt of His people that His work is accomplished.

As we saw in a sermon from Chapter 21, though the penalty for such actions is stoning, because Israel was under Roman rule, His death was on a cross. This was all in order to meet the plans of God. It is the death that is required, as it says, to “put away the evil from among you.”

Christ took the penalty, and He purged the evil from the fornicating daughter. But that now takes the reader back to the earlier verses. If the evil has been put away, the daughter is innocent of any claims against her.

This then brings the reader to the purity of the daughter. The account is set forth as a proposition. If a husband says his wife is defiled, the tokens of her virginity were to be brought forth as evidence against his claim. If the words are found false, a double payment to the father was to be made.

Christ took away the guilt of the people. Any charge against them, such as the law does by witnessing against the people, cannot stand. The blood of the virgin – meaning the true Israel, Christ – is brought forth to witness to their purity.

In such a false accusation, a double restoration in silver is exacted. Silver pictures redemption. Again, from Zechariah 9 –

“As for you also,
Because of the blood of your covenant,
I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit.
¹² Return to the stronghold,
You prisoners of hope.
Even today I declare
That I will restore double to you.” Zechariah 9:11 12

The words there are in the feminine, speaking to the daughter of Zion. The restoration in Deuteronomy is paid to the father, but it is for the sake of the conduct of the daughter. Thus, the daughter is implicitly vindicated and receives her own double in that the husband may never send her out, meaning divorce her, for all his days.

As the Lord is the Husband who has fulfilled the Law, meaning the accusation against her (which is His word), and as He is the One to take their penalty and to restore the double, then the wife He now has is His forever. It is, again, a note of eternal security.

In this, the Lord has filled all of the roles on behalf of His people. He is the Author of the law that witnesses against the daughter. He has come as the Ideal of the virgin daughter (the people of Israel).

He is the husband who detests the wife (she was actually guilty of harlotry). He is the Door of the Father’s house. He is the One who took the penalty for the guilty daughter, thus cleansing her.

He is the Payer of the double fine. He is the Father who receives the payment. He is the Husband who will never divorce His wife for all of His (eternal) days.

The words are actual law for Israel, and yet they speak in typology. No record of this passage being carried out is later found in the Old Testament. But a record of the fulfillment of the typology is found in the New.

And though this is dealing with Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem, it pertains to any who will come to Christ Jesus by faith. Paul says in Ephesians 2 –

“Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— ¹² that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ¹³ But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Ephesians 2:11-13

God wasn’t just preparing to save His people Israel. When He sent Christ, He was sending the Savior of all people – Jew and Gentile alike. All peoples are brought into the commonwealth of Israel through His one great act.

It is with this typology in mind that we can find out the truth of several doctrines in Scripture, such as the doctrines of substitution, imputation, eternal salvation, and so on. As for eternal salvation, if you are a part of the bride of Christ, you will never be cast off again. But in order to be a part of this body, you must first come to Christ by faith.

This is what God asks of you. Accept the gospel, believe in your heart that God has done all of this for you, and be reconciled to Him through the beautiful offer of the giving of His Son – our Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember that this passage hinges on the evidences of virginity. The fact is that none are chaste. All are impure, and we have all been rebellious against our God. However, in Christ, God has granted us Christ’s perfection (substitution and imputation) and we are counted as a virgin daughter before Him because of the evidences of the blood.

For those who have not come to Christ, Jew or Gentile, there are no such evidences, and there is only the anticipation of being destroyed just at the Door of the Father’s house. We can be so close to it, and yet we will not go through it to safety without the blood to witness for us. Be wise and call on Christ today. Your decision will decide your fate. Choose wisely.

Closing Verse: “Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. ² For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” 2 Corinthians 11:1, 2

Next Week: Deuteronomy 22:22-30 So that in your land there will be no upheaval… (You Shall Put Away the Evil) (66^th Deuteronomy Sermon)

The Lord has you exactly where He wants you. He has a good plan and purpose for you. But He also has expectations of you as He prepares you for entrance into His Land of Promise. So, follow Him and trust Him and He will do marvelous things for you and through you.

I Found That She Was Not a Virgin

“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her
Whoever he may be, even the Pres.
And detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct
And brings a bad name on her, and says…

“I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found
She was not a virgin, but she has been around

Then the father and mother of the young woman
Shall take and bring out the evidence that will clearly state
Of the young woman’s virginity
To the elders of the city at the gate

And the young woman’s father
Shall say to the elders words that she was pure
‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife
And he detests her

Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying
“I found your daughter was not a virgin, but it’s a lie you see
And yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity
And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city

Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him
And they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver
———-as to you I now tell
And give them to the father of the young woman
Because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel

And she shall be his wife
He cannot divorce her all his days of his life

“But if the thing is true
And evidences of virginity for the young woman are not found
Then they shall bring out the young woman to the door
Of her father’s house, then the men shall gather around

And the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones
Because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel
To play the harlot in her father’s house
So you shall put away the evil from among you, as I now tell

Lord God, turn our hearts to be obedient to Your word
Give us wisdom to be ever faithful to You
May we carefully heed each thing we have heard
Yes, Lord God may our hearts be faithful and true

And we shall be content and satisfied in You alone
We will follow You as we sing our songs of praise
Hallelujah to You; to us Your path You have shown
Hallelujah we shall sing to You for all of our days

Hallelujah and Amen…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¹³ “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, ¹⁴ and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ ¹⁵ then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. ¹⁶ And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. ¹⁷ Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ¹⁸ Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; ¹⁹ and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

²⁰ “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, ²¹ then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.