Torah (written)

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.

 

Deuteronomy 22:1-12
That You May Prolong Your Days

This sermon got typed on Memorial Day, 31 May 2021. As always, I did my early morning work after my devotionals, sending out a daily Revelation commentary, typing up a new Revelation commentary, and so on.

After that, and lots of other daily items of importance, I went to emails to delete all the junk that filtered in over the night, and to see if anything important needed to be answered right away. “Important” actually has two meanings on Monday morning: 1) “Important,” and 2) brief.

If an email isn’t brief, I don’t care how important it is, it isn’t important. It will wait at the bottom of the pile. Brevity indicates my time – to the person emailing – is important. It is appreciated.

I got a short email from a marvelous soul who I hear from occasionally that blessed me enough to share it with you. As I didn’t ask for permission to use it, no name or other identifiers are included. But I need an introduction to the sermon, and it fits well with this or any other sermon of detail, and so here is what was said –

Dear Charlie,

Good morning, I am certain it is a bit early over there, probably at 2am, so kindly bear with me. I was looking into the errors you compiled from the KJV and i think this is incorrect… Genesis 20:13 –

“The word translated as ‘God’ is incorrect. The verb is plural and the verse should thus say ‘gods.’ There is a reason for this which is missed by the translators. 1 demerit.”

Since it was Abraham speaking to Abimelech could he really have said that the gods made him wander from his father’s house?

First, the fact that anyone would go through and take time to read the innumerable errors recorded on that document is incredible. The copy on my computer is currently 219 pages long of line-by-line errors. It is mind-numbing to think anyone would even bother scrolling through it. It reveals a truly studious soul who finds the word a real treasure. My hat is off to this person.

Text Verse: “Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,
With the statutes and judgments.
⁵ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
⁶ And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.” Malachi 4:4-6

The Law of Moses is an anticipatory step to the glory to be revealed in the coming of Messiah. When He arrived, it should have been no doubt to anyone that He was the Messiah. But they failed to do their due diligence, and many missed their chance at being saved by Him.

Many of them knew the word, but simply rejected Him outright. Others probably failed to seek out the Lord through His word. That is like many of us, we hear something and we either reject it outright, or we may accept what we are told without checking for ourselves.

Before I even got up to answer the first email, my friend had already emailed back –

Dear Charlie,

Hello again, I have seen that I was wrong in the above mail… as I was going through the verse it surely didn’t make sense to put the word “gods” there, I mean we are talking about Abraham here… But after sending you my thoughts, I was like, surely Charlie couldn’t have made such a ridiculous error, and went through the rest and found the same comment on Genesis 35:7, and I couldn’t understand thus I thought of looking into your Genesis commentary and boom there I got to understand. Thank you for being very meticulous and have a fruitful day ahead.”

I appreciate both this person’s willingness to check things out and not just accept something at face value, and I would say to this person, “Rather, thank YOU for being very meticulous.” It is this type of person that is able to make my day go from regular, to exceptionally wonderful. This is a person that loves God’s word.

I should also say, “Thank you for helping me to find a suitable introduction to the sermon. It is much appreciated.” Many wonderful details are to be found in God’s 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. And Who Is My Neighbor (verses 1-4)

Chapter 22 deals with all kinds of moral laws, something that seems disconnected from what has just been presented in Chapter 21. However, a logical progression is seen. The last thing that was seen was these words –

“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, ²³ his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.” Deuteronomy 21:22, 23

As we saw, that section anticipated Christ who “has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). In understanding that, it logically follows that He saw us wandering in our sins, and He took the initiative to bring us back to our rightful owner, meaning God.

In understanding the connection, the introductory verses we will now look at make all the sense in the world. Though they are moral laws for Israel, they are based on the very work that Christ has accomplished, and they reflect His perfect moral character. They speak of purity, holiness, and that which is fair and just…

“You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them;

The word “brother” is to be taken in the broadest sense, meaning any person. In fact, in Exodus, as we will see in a minute, this includes one’s enemy. What is being referred to is an animal that belongs to another person, regardless as to who he is.

The word translated as “going astray” has a more specific meaning. It is the word nadakh – to impel, thrust, or banish. The intent here is not only a wanderer, but also that of an animal that has been chased away by wild animals or even thieves. The thought is reflected in Jeremiah 50:17 –

“Israel is like scattered sheep;
The lions have driven him away.
First the king of Assyria devoured him;
Now at last this Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has broken his bones.”

In such a case, where an animal has been so chased away, it would be easy to simply hide oneself and say, “This isn’t my concern.” However, by seeing it and knowing what occurred, it is right to do what one can to resolve the situation.

The very fact that one has to hide himself from them signifies that the conscience knows the proper course that should be taken. Though dealing with a person and not merely an animal, such was the attitude of the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan found in Luke 10. When asked, “And who is my neighbor,” we read the following –

“Then Jesus answered and said: ‘A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. ³¹ Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. ³² Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.’” Luke 10:30-32

Eventually, a Samaritan came and took care of the person. At the end of the parable, Jesus then put forth a question to elicit a necessary response –

“So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
³⁷ And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” Luke 10:36, 37

Whether a wounded person or the property of another person, the matters involve interpersonal relationships. Moses says that the right and moral course is to be pursued. Hence…

^1 (con’t) you shall certainly bring them back to your brother.

hashev teshivem l’akhikha – “returning, you shall return them to your brother.” In these words, all kinds of implied moral doctrines can be determined. The right to private property, the collective responsibility to private property, and even the rejection of whatever motive would stop a person from acting – such as laziness, cowardice, animosity towards a neighbor, and so on.

As our moral compass is to be in accord with that of the Lord, examples of the Lord doing exactly what Moses admonishes here are found in Scripture in order to instruct us, such as –

“I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment.” Ezekiel 34:16

This precept in Ezekiel is repeated in the New Testament concerning Jesus. Such things as this are expected because they reflect the good, pure, and moral nature of the Lord. The general tenor of this verse has already been seen earlier in Exodus –

“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again.” Exodus 23:4

Concerning the animal, more directions are now given…

² And if your brother is not near you,

To be understood, the words will need to be further defined by the next clause. For now, an animal has been found, but it does not belong to anyone around you, meaning it is someone’s outside of your sphere of influence.

You would have no idea whether to go south or north or east or west to find out who’s it is. There isn’t either the time or ability to take it out in search of finding its rightful master. If such is the case…

^2 (con’t) or if you do not know him,

The clause is not conditional. It does not say “or if.” It says, “and you do not know him.” This then explains the previous clause. He obviously lives far away because you have no idea who owns the animal. If such is the case…

^2 (con’t) then you shall bring it to your own house,

The words are more personal: v’asaphto el tok betekha – “and you shall gather it unto the midst of your house.” In other words, you shall secure it as you would secure your own possession, guarding it as if it was your own, but certainly not with the intent of keeping it. Rather…

^2 (con’t) and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it;

It is not to be eaten, sold, let out to borrow, or mishandled in any way. There is nothing said of it not being worked in a field or handled like any of his other animals, and that would actually be expected because it had to be fed and cared for. But it should be treated as if it was loaned property at best. When the owner comes seeking it…

^2 (con’t) then you shall restore it to him.

The word simply means “return.” It is his, and it shall be returned to him. The good deed is evidenced by the care of the animal, and the willingness to readily return it to its rightful owner.

One can easily see the redemption of man in this. The Lord made the man and placed him in the garden. Because of the devil, the man was chased from the garden. Christ recovered us and he keeps us both safe and, in His grasp, until we are returned to the place we had once been separated from. And yet, He is the Owner of the very place of rest we are returned to.

In the end, and though the words are in a different context, what Paul says in Romans sums up the precept quite well –

“For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” Romans 11:36

³ You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise;

The verse repeats the same words at the beginning of the first three clauses, v’ken taaseh – “and so you shall do.” Moses is speaking out direct and unambiguous instructions.

The repetition then provides its own emphasis to make it an all-inclusive statement. “And you shall do to his donkey, and so you shall do to his garment, and so you shall do to all lost thing of your brother which he has lost, and you have found.”

^3 (con’t) you must not hide yourself.

Donkeys are unclean animals, and they can have their own pleasant or nasty demeanor at times. Someone might not want to tend to one that is contrary.

A garment, a gold watch, or a grain basket – it doesn’t matter how unimportant or how expensive it might be – each was to be cared for and to be returned accordingly.

One was not to hide himself from collecting the thing and tending to it, and one was not to hide himself from returning it upon the owner’s arrival to retrieve it.

In like manner, the Lord has not hidden himself from Jew or Gentile, from the high and mighty or from the low and contemptible. He has reclaimed and restored all that come His way – meaning by faith in Him. The moral code for Israel is a reflection of the moral standard of the Lord.

⁴ “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them;

These words now again clearly show that the term “brother” is referring to humanity in general. This is because it is a close repeat of what is said in Exodus 23:5 –

“If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it.”

^4 (con’t) you shall surely help him lift them up again.

haqem taqim imo – “raising, you shall raise up with him.” Again, how can one not help but see Christ’s own work in this. The donkey is an unclean animal, and the ox is a clean animal.

There are Jews and there are Gentiles. All are fallen. But Christ did not restrain Himself or hide Himself from any. Instead, in being raised up Himself, He then raises up all who come into His path –

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” John 12:32

&

“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:40

Of these first four verses, Adam Clarke correctly states, “These comparatively small matters were tests and proofs of matters great in themselves, and in their consequences.”

And more, these matters of law are to be considered shadows and reflections of those great matters in which Christ personally and intimately interacted with in regard to humanity.

Who is my neighbor, and who is my brother?
How do I decide which is and which ain’t?
Is it someone I’m related to? Is it that and not another?
Is it anyone on the street, or only the greatest saint?

How do I define who I am responsible to tend to?
From which can I ignore by turning away?
If I see my enemy in need, what shall I do?
What does the nature of the Lord to me say?

I must remember that God demonstrates His love toward us
In that while we were still sinners, He opened the door
He did this through the death of Jesus
And through that, we are reconciled forevermore

I shall think likewise towards those around me
Be they a friend, a relative, or even my greatest enemy

II. That It May Be Well with You (verses 5-12)

The previous verses referred to what was peculiar to the individual, meaning private property. The next verses speak of that which is peculiar in nature. Just as man has that which belongs to him, the Lord has designated things to belong to nature as defined by Him.

⁵ “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man,

lo yihyeh keli gever al ishah – “No shall be implement male upon woman.” The word translated as “anything that pertains” is keli. It signifies a utensil, implement, article, vessel, and so on.

There are various words that are translated as “man.” In this verse, it uses the word ishah, or woman, but instead of using ish, or man, it uses gever. That comes from gavar, meaning strong or mighty. Thus, the distinction is being made more pronounced.

This certainly includes the thought of battle implements, such as armor. The implements of a man are those things that identify a man even when he is not wearing them. There is an understood division between what a woman may have upon her, and that which she was to not have upon her. Likewise…

^5 (con’t) nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment,

v’lo yilbash gever simlat ishah – “and no shall put on male garment woman.” The idea here is being effeminate. That which makes a woman stand out as a woman, even when it is not on her, is that which is not to be worn by a man.

The interchangeable nature of many garments, or parts of garments, isn’t what is being referred to here. It is referring to those things that clearly are set apart for men or for women and which would then blur the sexes.

Paul speaks of these things in 1 Corinthians 11, saying –

“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? ¹⁵ But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” 1 Corinthian 11:14, 15

When Paul says, “Does not even nature itself teach,” he is indicating the state of things that are understood in all societies, because it is evident from nature itself. Thus, when Paul says, “if a man has long hair,” it is not the length of hair that is actually being referred to – a fallacy known as the beard fallacy. In other words, when does “long” become “long.”

He is referring to being effeminate. Q: “Who, or what, is to define ‘long hair’ on a man?” Is it more than a marine-style jarhead haircut? Is it more than one inch? Is hair on the collar a dishonor? What if hair goes even past the neck? What if…. what if (perish the thought!) the hair is found to touch the shoulders? Just what is the definition of “long hair?”

It must be understood that the Bible never contradicts itself. However, people like Samson and John the Baptist were set apart to the Lord from birth and would never have cut their hair. Absalom had very long hair.

Amos 2:12 refers to Nazirites in Israel, and even Paul took such a vow in Acts 18:18. During the time of their consecration, they never cut their hair. Thus, having long hair, in and of itself, cannot be a shame or dishonor to a man because men of God were known to have had long hair.

Therefore, Paul’s words would be contradictory. Understanding this, it must be the appearance of the long hair which is a dishonor. If a man looks like a woman, then he has passed from manliness to femininity. This, in and of itself, then, would be dishonoring to him.

Men are men and women are women. God intends for men to look like men, and He intends for women to look like women. Further, the actions of the man are to be manly actions and the actions of a woman are to be feminine.

If a man has a beard, no matter how long his hair is, he will certainly not be mistaken for a woman, unless maybe he is in a circus sideshow. However, if the long hair on a man becomes the primary point of identifying him as a female, then he has brought shame upon himself. This is the idea behind Moses’ words, behind Paul’s words, and that which nature itself speaks of. This is because…

^5 (con’t) for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

The sexes that were created by God, and which are purposed to demonstrate headship within humanity. When they are blurred, the intent is ruined, and thus God is dishonored through the situation. Therefore, it is an abomination to Him.

⁶ “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs,

In this, two new words are introduced. The first is ephroakh, or “young ones.” That comes from parakh, meaning to bud or burst forth. Thus, they are young birds, having recently burst from the shell.

The other is betsah, or egg. That comes from an unused root meaning to bleach, and thus to be white.

^6 (con’t) you shall not take the mother with the young;

There is a natural order to things that the Lord has instilled in creation. We have ducks, even since the world was created, because ducks produce a certain number of babies each year. Some get eaten by snakes, some get eaten by hawks, and so on. After all, snakes and hawks have also been around since the world was created.

Each thing in nature finds its place and, at times, a mother bird will lose her young. Despite this, she can have more to replace them. Generally, the only part of the equation that will upset the natural order of things is man. If you don’t believe that, see what Mao did to the swallow population in China, and which then brought the society to a point of famine.

And so, God has instilled in man both a conscience, and the ability to positively affect the world around him if he is willing to do so. In this case of the law, it is mandated for him to do so. The precept is to guard the conscience, and the conscience is to make right decisions about the world in which he lives.

It is the man that the Lord is actually caring for when Moses, under inspiration, gives these words. This is certainly the case, as is understood from the next verse…

⁷ you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself,

Shaleakh teshalakh eth ha’em – “letting go, you shall let go the mother.” To take the mother and not the young would leave the young for dead. But to take the young would leave the mother alive. The young could be raised and eaten, raised and sold, or whatever. The species is able to continue, man is benefitted materially, and man is benefitted in his conscience, as is next seen…

^7 (con’t) that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

l’maan yitav lakh – “for end purpose it may be well with you.” There is an intended purpose for the command. The implication is that if it is not followed, things will not go well. The reason isn’t the Lord actively running such a person down.

Rather, it is that such a person will, by the reason of seared conscience, become more and more depraved. Compassion is something that can be nurtured in a person, and it is something that can be obliterated in a person – all based on his own conduct. The law is given to nurture it.

The words of this clause are seen elsewhere in the fifth commandment –

“Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.” Deuteronomy 5:16

These are general statements that one will prosper through adhering to the commands. In many cases, the world of man is governed by general laws of God, not by laws that are universal. This promised blessing is one that is therefore generally to be expected, but not necessarily universally received. The intent is for the well-being of the person so that it will more assuredly come to pass.

⁸ “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof,

Here is a word found only once in Scripture, maaqeh, or “parapet.” It is from an unused root meaning to repress. The idea is that a small wall or battlement is to be erected on the roof so…

^8 (con’t) that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

The guilt of bloodshed will be imputed to anyone who fails to do as is stated here. In that, one would fall under the laws of the avenger of blood because of his negligence. As it says: ki yippol ha’nophel – “When falling the faller.”

The idea here is the preservation of life. In this, an obvious connection to the work of the Lord is seen. The New Testament says God is building a house out of his people. It is a new house in contrast to the earthly temple, or house, of the law. This house is referred to numerous times in the epistles. Thus, what is said here is what Paul refers to in Romans 14:4 –

“Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”

Thus, this is a picture of eternal security. The house God is building is a house that is designed to keep any from falling. The earthly precept anticipates the divine edifice.

⁹ “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

This, along with the next two verses, closely follow after Leviticus 19:19. For this verse, it matches the clause which says, “You shall not sow your field with mixed seed.” The words here speak of purity of source. To sow with different kinds of seed will stress the soil, and it would also stress the crops – one type fighting against another.

Thus, this was forbidden. To do otherwise will defile all that the land produces. The expectation is that which is the best, which is undefiled, and which will bring about the most profit from the effort. None of this is possible when a mixing of varieties occurs.

¹⁰ “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

Like the previous verse where soil will be stressed by mixing seeds, the same thought is true here. The words, however, diverge from Leviticus 19:19. There it says, “You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind.”

There, it is referring to purity of type. By mixing various animals, an impure strain will result. In this case, it is speaking of purity of effort. The ox is a larger, more powerful animal. The donkey is smaller and incapable of bearing up under the same load as an ox. Thus, the donkey will be stressed and possibly even die.

It would be unprofitable to both owner and animal, it would defile the work if the donkey succumbed, and the result would be less than the best concerning the plowing effort. Next, Moses continues with another unauthorized aspect of mixing things…

¹¹ “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts,

In these words, is the second and final use of the word shaatnez. The first was in Leviticus 19:19. It signifies “mixed stuff.” The words follow after, and more fully explain, Leviticus 19:19 which says, “nor wear a garment of two kinds of material mixed together” (NASB). Here, two examples are added to make sure the precepts are properly understood…

^{11 (con’t)} such as wool and linen mixed together.

No garment was to be made of both wool and linen. This precept speaks of purity of result. To wear a garment of two or more materials would cause the garment to wear out unevenly. Only garments of single materials were thus to be worn.

Each of these three verses speaks of purity involved in the matter at hand. The Lord wanted the best for His people, and therefore, these precepts were given to them.

However, these things are only typical of greater spiritual truths found in the New Testament. Each of the laws carries a moral meaning which can be summed up in New Testament verses concerning purity in the lives of believers, such as –

“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.” 1 Corinthians 10:21

“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? ¹⁵ And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? ¹⁶ And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-16

These verses in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy are given to point us to the spiritual truth that we are not to mix the holy with the profane. One will always stress, and often wear out, the other. The best result will not be obtained, the matters at hand will be defiled, and that which is profitable will be tainted, even to the point where it no longer profits at all.

*^{12 (fin)} “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

Moses introduces a rare word to Scripture here, gedil. It signifies a tassel, but it is completely different than that used in Numbers 15 when referring to the same thing, tsitsith. This word gedil is only found elsewhere in 1 Kings 7:17 where it is translated as wreaths.

The word signifies “twisted threads,” coming from the word gadal meaning to advance, bring up, and so on. Threads are twisted together to form tassels.

The tassels are to be placed on the kanaph, or corners of the people’s covering. That word literally means wing, or an extremity. The traditional garment would be a four-cornered cloth with a hole in the middle. Thus, two corners would be on the front and two on the back. On each of these corners, or wings, a tassel was to be attached.

What Moses mandates here is much more fully explained in Numbers 15 –

“Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners. ³⁹ And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined, ⁴⁰ and that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your God. ⁴¹ I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord your God.” Numbers 15:38-41

The blue thread signifies the law, thus, the tassels served as an identifier of the individual with the covenant, and the blue within it was to serve as an identifier with the law. However, and unfortunately, despite being given to serve as a reminder to do the commandments of the Lord, they actually became a source of personal idolatry. Jesus rebuked the leaders of Israel for this in Matthew 23:1-5 –

“Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, ² saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. ³ Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. ⁴ For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. ⁵ But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.’”

The enlarging of the borders of their garments is speaking of this practice. It was a way of pretending to be more pious than others, by showing off their desire to follow and do the Lord’s commands, more than anyone else – whether that was actually true or not.

As we saw in our text verse today, the final petition of the Old Testament, found in Malachi 4 was to “remember the Law of Moses.” As that was the purpose of these tassels, and as the Law of Moses was given to anticipate the coming of Messiah, then these tassels are actually given to ask the people to remember… Messiah.

They are to remember that He is coming, and that they must hear Him when He speaks. Therefore, the tassels are given as a picture of the coming Christ, just as everything else is.

The blue cord contained within them is a reminder not of their fulfillment of the law, but of His. He is the fulfillment of this beautiful blue cord in the tassel. Hints of this are actually seen in His ministry. This is what it says in Matthew –

“And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment. ²¹ For she said to herself, ‘If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.’ ²² But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, ‘Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.’ And the woman was made well from that hour.” Matthew 9:20-22

&

“When they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret. ³⁵ And when the men of that place recognized Him, they sent out into all that surrounding region, brought to Him all who were sick, ³⁶ and begged Him that they might only touch the hem of His garment. And as many as touched it were made perfectly well.” Matthew 14:34-36

It says they reached for the spot of the tassel. They understood that He was to be the fulfillment of the law which they were reminded of with the wearing of their own tassels. One was to come who would heal the people, but not just physically.

Christ’s mission was to heal the people spiritually as well. It is He who came and walked among humanity in order to redeem us from the curse of the law. The law can only bring a curse, but as we saw at the end of the last chapter, and as we noted today, Christ became a curse for us through being hanged on a tree.

But more, He also fulfilled all of the typology of the verses we have looked at today. Each one gives us moral hints of what God is like and how we are to emulate Him. When we fail to do so, we must either face the penalty of our transgression apart for the Lord, or we can receive full and forever forgiveness for it by calling out to the Lord.

In Christ, the curse is removed. In Christ, the lost are rescued. In Christ, the burdens are lifted, and in Christ full, final, and forever restoration with God is obtained.

He is our Healer – both physically and spiritually. In Him is the fulfillment of the law, and so when we look to Him in faith we can gladly proclaim, “Thank God! Curse removed!” Let us trust in Christ, rest in Christ, and honor our heavenly Father through the Lord Jesus Christ all of our days. Yes, may it be so.

Closing Verse: “…who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. ²⁵ For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”1 Peter 2:24, 25

Next Week: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 For this crime, there will be a’purg’n… (I Found That She Was Not a Virgin) (65^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.

That You May Prolong Your Days

“You shall not see
Your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, as if passing it on
———-to another
And hide yourself from them
You shall certainly bring them back to your brother

And if your brother is not near you
Or if you do not know him, as to you I submit
Then you shall bring it to your own house
And it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it

Then you shall restore it to him
You shall do the same with his donkey
And so shall you do with his garment
This is how it is to be…

With any lost thing of your brother’s
Which he has lost and you have found
You shall do likewise
You must not hide yourself, as if no one else is around

“You shall not see your brother’s donkey
Or his ox fall down along the road, like wicked men
And hide yourself from them
You shall surely help him lift them up again

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man
Nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, that is wicked and odd
For all who do so are an abomination
To the LORD your God

“If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way
In any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs
With the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs
You shall not take the mother with the young
———-You would be society’s dregs

You shall surely let the mother go
And take the young for yourself; being kind always pays
That it may be well with you
And that you may prolong your days

“When you build a new house
Then you shall make a parapet for your roof, to this
———-you shall commit
That you may not bring guilt of bloodshed
On your household if anyone falls from it

“You shall not sow your vineyard
With different kinds of seed, such would be bizarre and wild
Lest the yield of the seed which you have sown
And the fruit of your vineyard be defiled

“You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together
Neither on a sunny day or in stormy weather

“You shall not wear a garment of different sorts
Such as wool and linen mixed together; you can put that idea
———-back on the shelf
“You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing
With which you cover yourself

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…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. ² And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. ³ You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself.

⁴ “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again.

⁵ “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

⁶ “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, with the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; ⁷ you shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days.

⁸ “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.

⁹ “You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.

¹⁰ “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

¹¹ “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.

¹² “You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.

Deuteronomy 21:18-23
He Who Is Hanged Is Accursed of God

There’s something wrong with a conversation I had with Sergio when preparing the previous Deuteronomy 21 sermon. I will read you the conversation as it is both quite comical and also highly embarrassing. I copied the messages directly from the conversation. I needed help with the Hebrew on one of the verses, needing to make sure I was correct in an analysis I was putting together. The exchange reads:

C: “Hey, I got something for you. Do you have a Hebrew moment?”
S: “What’s that mean?! As in, it’ll take more than a moment?! Sure. Just answering emails”
C: I just have a question that I want to reconcile. Deut 21:15-17. Is there any way to determine if the wives are at the same time, or only one after another (the first wife is gone by divorce or death). Only one scholar comments, insisting that they are one after the other and not both alive at the same time. I think they are trying to inject their bias against polygamy into it. It seems (as far as I can tell) that the Hebrew is clear – two wives together. The other commentators seem to agree, but I just wonder how you read it.
S: I think the telling part is in v 16- the tense of the verbs. Sounds like both at the same time. I’ve read this and stumbled over it every time as I try to figure out why this is ok but today no polygamy. Not wanting to read my bias in but what you said in sermon yesterday was a brain squiggle.”
C: Exactly how I read it. And it is not true that polygamy is not allowed today. It is only forbidden for elders and deacons. Implying that it is not disallowed for anyone else.
S: I guess I mean in our culture context, which is based on biblical law
C: Yes!
S: But maybe I presume too far. So then have to rethink the whole Muslim 4 wives thing…
C: It would make no sense to go to Africa and say, you cannot be a Christian unless you divorce your wives.
S: Absolutely not
C: The Lord accommodates cultural things like this. But the real question is… Why would anyone want the headache of two wives!
S: Of course I can’t imagine the drama of more than one wife…
C: We think exactly alike ahahahaha
S: And I’m a woman!!
C: Is that Rhoda?
Oh gee I thought I was talking to Sergio.

It got worse. I wasn’t just not talking to Sergio or Rhoda. I was messaging a lady here in the church, not realizing I had hit the wrong contact…

Text Verse: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ⁴ to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, ⁵ who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” 1 Peter 1:3-5

Sometimes, we do something thinking that we are taking an action in order to resolve one issue when, in fact, we may be resolving a completely different issue. The verses today will show us this.

Israel thought they were taking care of an issue through the crucifixion of the Lord, when in fact the issue that was being taken care of through His cross was exactly the opposite of what they thought it was. For me and my messaging, it was embarrassing to say the least. For Israel, and for us, what occurred was glorious.

One thing is for sure, nothing God has done in and through Christ will ever cease to amaze us – even for eternal years. Marvelous 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. He Will Not Obey Our Voice (verses 18-21)

¹⁸ “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son

ki yihyeh l’ish ben sorer u-moreh – “According to has to man son backsliding and rebellious.” Here is a new word, and another that still should be defined. The first word, translated as “stubborn,” is sarar. It is new to Scripture, and it signifies stubborn, backsliding, rebellious, etc. Robert Young translates it as “apostatizing.”

It means “to turn away” in a moral sense. In the writings, psalms and prophets, it will be used again and again when referring to Israel the people.

The second word is marah. It signifies to be contentious, rebellious, provoking, and so on. It comes from a root which signifies, causatively, to make “bitter.” Thus, when one is rebellious, it will embitter the one who is rebelled against.

It has been used 8 times so far, always in relation to a person or the people of Israel. For example, it was used of both Aaron and Moses who embittered the Lord through disobedience. It has also been used several times about the entire congregation.

Like the other word, it will also be used in the writings, the psalms, and the prophets when referring to rebellious Israel. Through their actions, they embitter the Lord.

Taken together, however, the words as they are used here sorer u-moreh, become an idiomatic expression in Israel. They are used together in the Hebrew in the same manner elsewhere, such as in Psalm 78:8 and Jeremiah 5:23 –

“And may not be like their fathers,
A stubborn and rebellious generation,
A generation that did not set its heart aright,
And whose spirit was not faithful to God.” Psalm 78:8

&

‘But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart;
They have revolted and departed.” Jeremiah 5:23

As a curious side note, the word moreh is noted in the margin of Matthew 5:22 in the Revised New Testament where the Greek word more is translated as “you fool” –

“But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matthew 5:22

There, the Greek word is móros – a stupid or foolish person. The noun form is where the English word “moron” finds its origin. Though the words are not etymologically related, it appears that they carried basically the same idiomatic relation in both languages just as many similar words in various languages do for us today.

For now, and with these words understood, we see that this son both turns away from what is right, and he also embitters his parents in the process. He is a selfish malcontent that continuously chooses the rebellious path to his shame and to the grief of those who are responsible for him, as is next explicitly stated…

^{18 (con’t)} who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother,

The Hebrew reads: b’qol aviv u-b’qol imo – “in voice father and in voice mother.” The “and” can mean “or” at times, but for now, just note that it says “and.”

As far as the clause, this explains the use of the word marah. Not only is he a deadbeat that does disgraceful things, maybe without his parents knowing it, but he purposefully ignores the words of his parents. He does what they tell him not to do, and he doesn’t do what they tell him to do. What they say is shunned, even after correction. As it says…

^{18 (con’t)} and who, when they have chastened him,

In this, the word yasar is used. It signifies to discipline, chasten, admonish, and so on. It means to literally chastise with blows, or figuratively with words – as if for instruction.

This word has been used six times, all in relation to Israel. The first three were in Leviticus 26 where the Lord said he would yasar, or punish, Israel for their future disobediences. Further, it is especially noteworthy that a parallel is made to them and to this disobedient son twice so far –

“You should know in your heart that as a man chastens his son, so the Lord your God chastens you.” Deuteronomy 8:5

The word will continue to be used in relation to Israel in the writings of the prophets. And more, it is used in an emphatic form in Psalm 118:18 (a messianic Psalm) when referring to the chastening of the Lord upon His Messiah –

“The Lord has chastened me severely,
But He has not given me over to death.” Psalm 118:18

There the Hebrew reads: yasor yiserani Yah – “chastening has chastened me Yah.” The idea here in Deuteronomy is that the parents took the appropriate measures that should be taken. They have spoken to him, and he would not listen – to either parent – and they then disciplined him as a parent should, and nothing has helped. He is worthless and beyond any hope of redemption. Even after chastening he..

^{18 (con’t)} will not heed them,

v’lo yishma alehem – “and no will hear them.” The same word used in the second clause and translated there as “obey,” is again used here. It is shama. Here, it signifies to hear in the sense of hearkening to, and thus to obey. He purposefully ignores the words of his parents to his own shame and to their agony. What to do with such a rebellious punk? Moses next says…

¹⁹ then his father and his mother shall take hold of him

v’taphesu bo aviv v’imo – “and shall take hold of him his father and his mother.” As you can see, verse 18 was translated as “father or mother,” but now they translate it as “father and mother.” In this, scholars then give an opinion on the meaning that may not be correct.

We will get to that in a few minutes. For now, the parents are to lay their hands upon Miscreant Mike and march him to those who will attend to the matter accordingly…

^{19 (con’t)} and bring him out to the elders

The elders are those referred to in verse 21:2. As we saw, they are those who represent the citizens. Generally, it is the elders who are responsible for proper conduct within the families, and for maintaining proper standards for all who issue from the tribe to which they belong. They have the age and experience to evaluate moral matters within the city, as it next says…

^{19 (con’t)} of his city,

The translation is correct. It is not “of the city,” as if it were any city. Rather, it is personal – iro, “of his city.” He lives there, and those who have seen him grow up know full well what kind of a loser he is. They will now be allowed to make the moral decision about his wayward disposition. Specifically, he is to go…

^{19 (con’t)} to the gate of his city.

Now the translation is incorrect. It says: v’el shaar meqomo – “and to gate his place.” The word maqom means “a standing.” It is the place where he lives and takes up the air, water, and food that are jointly used by all the people. The words are personal and reveal the intimacy of the situation.

The gate of the city, as has been seen, is the place where the affairs of the city are conducted, and matters of morality, legality, and so on are discussed, evaluated, judged, and tried. Once the parents have him there at the gates…

²⁰ And they shall say to the elders of his city,

The word iro, or “his city,” is used again. It is a personal matter dealing with a person in the city in which he lives, and he is standing before the elders of his city. They are those who are morally responsible for heeding the words of his parents and taking action after hearing the parents’ words, which are…

^{20 (con’t)} ‘This son of ours

benenu zeh – “son of ours, this.” You can almost see them standing there pointing at him, distancing themselves from him. They have had enough, and they now will be rid of him, because he…

^{20 (con’t)} is stubborn and rebellious;

Sins one and two: sorer u-moreh – “backsliding and rebellious.” It is an exact repeat of the words stated about him in verse 18. It is probable that if this was not yet an idiom, it became one at this time. The repetition from verse 18 now, as is to be proclaimed by the parents, would be long remembered and used by the people henceforth. Along with these sins…

^{20 (con’t)} he will not obey our voice;

The third sin: enenu shomea b’qolenu – “not hear our voice.” It is again a repeat of verse 18. He does what they tell him not to do, and he doesn’t do what they tell him to do. What they say is shunned, even after correction. And more…

^{20 (con’t)} he is a glutton and a drunkard.’

The fourth and fifth sins: zolel v’sove – “glutton and drunkard.” The word zalal, or “glutton” is introduced. It signifies “to shake” as in the shaking of the wind, and also to quake. It figuratively means to be morally loose, and thus prodigal and worthless. It is used in Proverbs 28:7 when speaking of a worthless son –

‘Whoever keeps the law is a discerning son,
But a companion of gluttons shames his father.” Proverbs 28:7

It is of note that Israel did not keep the law. The words of this Proverb implicitly speak against Israel. It is certainly what was on the Lord’s mind in Luke 15, a proverb clearly referring to Israel –

“A certain man had two sons. ¹² And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me.’ So he divided to them his livelihood. ¹³ And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living.” Luke 15:11-13

The second word, sove, is also introduced here. It signifies wine and thus abstractly it speaks of carousal, coming from sava, meaning to drink heavily. This word is found only four times, once here, twice in relation to Israel, and once in relation to Nineveh.

The first word, and the verb form of the second word are found together in Proverbs, and it is very probable that Solomon was considering this verse from Deuteronomy when he wrote out his thoughts there. This is especially likely considering that he refers to both the father and the mother in the passage –

“Hear, my son, and be wise;
And guide your heart in the way.
²⁰ Do not mix with winebibbers,
Or with gluttonous eaters of meat;
²¹ For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe a man with rags.
²² Listen to your father who begot you,
And do not despise your mother when she is old.
²³ Buy the truth, and do not sell it,
Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.
²⁴ The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice,
And he who begets a wise child will delight in him.
²⁵ Let your father and your mother be glad,
And let her who bore you rejoice.” Proverbs 23:19-25

As far as why I mentioned the use of “or” and “and” above is revealed here. In this, both parents are said to come and testify against the son. As such, scholars generally state the same thing as with Matthew Poole does –

“The consent of both father and mother is required to prevent the abuse of this law to cruelty. And it cannot reasonably be supposed that both would agree without manifest necessity, and the son’s abominable and incorrigible wickedness…” Matthew Poole

One must read into the text that both parents must agree to this. If there are two parents, this would certainly be the case. But if there was only one parent, his words would be just as valid. It is the law of two or three witnesses that testify to a crime. In the case of the parents, two is sufficient. Albert Barnes is right when he says –

“The formal accusation of parents against a child was to be received without inquiry, as being its own proof. Thus the just authority of the parents is recognized and effectually upheld…”

However, if there is only one parent, the purpose of bringing the son before the elders, and the reason it highlights in a personal way “his city” and the “gate of his place,” is because those elders would be fully aware of the conduct of the person, and they – or someone from the city – would be fully qualified to speak against him.

What is necessary is the voice of the parent – be it one or two. There is nothing in the law that speaks of stoning such a person apart from the witness of the parent who has the moral right to testify against the son. This is what is highlighted in the passage. If this has been established…

²¹ Then all the men of his city

Again, it is personal, iro, or “his city.” The people of the town would have been aware of this person’s conduct, the parents had brought him forward, no longer able to bear his conduct, and he is thus considered irredeemable. What is of note, however, is that the stoning is reserved for the men of the city.

In Leviticus 20:2, it says “the people” shall stone a person who gives his descendants to Molech. Five times in Leviticus and Numbers, it says “all the congregation.” However, here, only the men are mentioned who…

^{21 (con’t)} shall stone him to death with stones;

Without any explanation of why the men are singled out, it simply says that it is they who are to stone him until he is dead. Stoning has already been used as the punishment for a blasphemer and a Sabbath-breaker. It is also noted as the prescribed punishment for other offenses as well.

The idea here is that if this son is rebellious against his own parents, he is – in essence – acting as a blasphemer. This is because the fifth commandment has been given, which is to honor one’s parent. In ignoring the command, he thus blasphemes God. And a blasphemer is to be stoned…

^{21 (con’t)} so you shall put away the evil from among you,

This is the first purpose of capital punishment. Some punishments will drive the evil from a person. However, some forms of evil are so egregious that there is no remedy except to purge the source of the evil, meaning the person, from the society. If this is not accomplished, the society will eventually devolve into anarchy. However, when appropriate action is taken, a positive aspect will arise from it…

^{21 (con’t)} and all Israel shall hear and fear.

This is the second purpose of capital punishment. This is unlike our nation today where a certain element is allowed to run amok and get away with anything – no matter how egregious it seems – thus resulting in even more wickedness.

Instead, when a person is executed for his crime, others will hear and be less likely to commit the same offense. Eventually, enough miscreants will be removed where the people will live in peace without them, and those who would dare to act accordingly will – instead – turn to a more productive lifestyle. This punishment is probably what Solomon was referring to –

“The eye that mocks his father,
And scorns obedience to his mother,
The ravens of the valley will pick it out,
And the young eagles will eat it.” Proverbs 30:17

A person who has been stoned outside the city for offenses against his parents will be left to rot where he lies. In such a state, the birds of the air will fill themselves with his otherwise worthless remains.

Stubborn and rebellious, deserving to be stoned
This is what should happen to this son
Can his sins ever be atoned?
Look at all the wickedness he has done!

He is a glutton and a drunkard and deserves to die
This is for certain, and it should come about
The parent has had enough, though He did try
But his life should end with stones… and in a shout

* The evil must be put away from us
We are Israel and we must be rid of this Man!
We must remove from the land this Jesus
We must purge Him away as soon as we can

II. You Shall Surely Bury Him That Day (Verses 22 & 23)

²² “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death,

v’ki yihyeh b’ish khet mishpat mavet – “And regarding is in man a sin, judgment of death.” The meaning is that a person is found to be worthy of death and is thus under a sentence of death. It is a capital crime that is referred to.

The words here follow immediately after stoning of the stubborn and rebellious son, and the connection is certainly intentional. It may be that what Moses will next say about such a person is to underscore the need to end punishment for even such a vile offender so that the people do not assume that their punishment can exceed the boundaries of God’s grace and mercy.

This must be the case based on what will be said in the next verse. For now, there is the case of one worthy of death and under a sentence of death. If this is the case…

^{22 (con’t)} and he is put to death,

This could include any form of execution. A person may be killed with the sword, stoned, and so on. The means of death is irrelevant to the passage. He came under a sentence of death, and he is executed. If this occurs…

^{22 (con’t)} and you hang him on a tree,

The word translated as “tree” is ets. It signifies wood. It can be a tree, gallows, or the like. In this, it is obvious that this is referring to publicly displaying him after death. It is a practice that had its own significance and was practiced in Israel. One such example is seen in the killing of five Amorite kings in Joshua 10 –

“And afterward Joshua struck them and killed them, and hanged them on five trees; and they were hanging on the trees until evening. ²⁷ So it was at the time of the going down of the sun that Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees, cast them into the cave where they had been hidden, and laid large stones against the cave’s mouth, which remain until this very day.” Joshua 10:26, 27

The idea here is that of victory over the foe. Joshua defeated the five Amorite kings, and they were hanged off of the land by men’s hands, demonstrating that they no longer had any authority over the ground below them – “We have gained victory over the foe, and this is a public demonstration of it.”

The same is true with the person who is found to have committed sin and who is then under a judgment of death. The body is on public display that the sin of the man has been judged by men, he has been executed for it, and he has then been lifted up by men after the execution as a symbol of victory over the sin – “We have gained victory over the foe, and this is a public demonstration of it.” If such is the case…

²³ his body shall not remain overnight on the tree,

The word is nebelah, a carcass. As was seen in the account of the five Amorite kings, they were hung until evening, the start of a new day, and then they were taken down. This was to avoid violating this clause of the law.

As I said just a minute ago, what is being said here is stated so that the people do not assume that their punishment can exceed the boundaries of God’s grace and mercy.

The person has died for his sin, the victory over it has been gained, and the day has revealed this. But how God deals with the person after that is wholly at His will. Before the sun went down, this was to be accomplished. As it next specifically says…

^{23 (con’t)} but you shall surely bury him that day,

The words are emphatic: ki qabor tiqberenu ba’yom ha’hu – “For burying him you shall bury him in the day the that.” This makes it absolutely clear that the person is to be buried before the sun goes down, meaning before the start of the next day.

They were not to wait until sundown and then take the body down, but they were to have this accomplished before the next day began. And there is a reason for this…

^{23 (con’t)} so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance;

In the Hebrew, this is actually the last clause of the verse. And it will be evaluated as such. The correct rendering is: “(for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance” (KJV). With that understood, we will first evaluate the words…

*^{23 (fin)} for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

ki qilat Elohim talui – “for accursed of God he who is hanged.” The word is qelalah. It signifies cursed, but what does that mean? John Lange is correct when he says –

“the word contains the idea; to reject as detestable, wherefore the one cursed of God must be removed as soon as possible out of sight, from off the land given by God, which is defiled (morally, not physically, not even levitically) by him.” John Lange

The person died in sin, a moral issue. It isn’t the physical body that is being referred to, even though defilement does come to one who touches a dead body. And it is not a ceremonial defilement that is being referred to. It is a moral issue being addressed.

And more, this does not mean that the person who is hanged is accursed in the sense of not being saved. That would mean that any saved person who was hanged on a tree could not be saved. That is not the issue. What this means is that the person becomes a curse when hanged on a tree. Why?

Because sin is in all people. Anyone who is publicly displayed on a tree is dead. Death is the final penalty for sin. It is not the physical body, but the sin that is being focused on. Sin hangs on the tree and that sin is accursed of God. Albert Barnes explains it quite well –

“That is, he has forfeited his life to the law; for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them; and on his body, in the execution of the sentence of the law, the curse was considered as alighting; hence the necessity of removing the accursed thing out of sight.” Albert Barnes

The dead body is the evidence of the sin, the body is placed on display as a sign of victory over the sin, but then the sin is to be put away. The hanging of the body on the tree is the sign of being accursed by God and that is to be ended with the coming of the new day. With that, the final clause of the verse in the Hebrew can now be analyzed.

The body is to be taken down from the tree before sundown, “so that you do not defile the land.” The Hebrew says, “your earth,” not “the land.” As was seen in the first verse of the chapter, the word used both there and here is adamah.

It usually signifies the ground, soil, or earth, rather than the land as territory. It comes from the same root as adam, or man. Both come from the verb adom, implying redness. As we noted in verse 21:1, the thought of defiling the ground (not the land) with a body curiously brackets the contents of the entire chapter.

Such an ongoing public display of the sin would defile the ground because it would be an ongoing public display of the curse of God, thus defiling it.

With that understood, Moses closes out this incredible chapter with the usual formula that he has used again and again in Deuteronomy, saying it is that “which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.”

Israel was in bondage, and Israel was brought out. The Lord chose the land, promised it to the fathers, and is fulfilling His promise by bringing Israel in and giving them the land. The idea, then, is that just as the Lord has given it, so He can remove them from it.

The statement is both a note of ownership and a note of expected performance. Unfortunately, the record of Israel shows that they have consistently treated the land by the first notion, but they have rarely treated it by the latter. With the verses complete, we must next find what the Lord expects us to discover concerning them…

Look at Him there, hanging on that tree
He is cursed of God, just as the law does say
I’m so glad that it isn’t me
That is hanging there on that cross today

I have done nothing so that I deserve to die
I am Israel, God’s chosen son
He looks with favor on me, I don’t even have to try
Yes, I am the favored one

But there… there upon that tree
There is the accursed of God for what He has done
What happens to Him has nothing to do with me
I am Israel, God’s chosen son

III. Pictures of Christ

In this Chapter of Deuteronomy, there has been a high stress on typology pointing to the Person and work of Jesus Christ. The first passage (1-9) pointed to His work cleansing the people from the guilt of innocent blood. As accomplished through the breaking of the neck of an unworked heifer.

The second passage (10-14) refers to the doctrine of eternal security for the believer who is brought out from the power of the devil. Such a person can never be sold back to his power again.

The third passage (15-17) looks to the pi shnayim, or firstborn’s portion (the double portion) that came through Christ’s work. Through His work, He redeemed to Himself those under law, both Jew and Gentile – be it the Mosaic Law or the general law of sin.

In our verses today, we first came to the fourth passage (18-21) which revealed the penalty for the disobedient son who would not listen to his father or mother. As we saw, the words used in those verses have been, and continue on throughout Scripture to be, applied to Israel, God’s disobedient son.

In the fifth passage (22 & 23), which is intimately connected with the fourth passage, a note concerning hanging a person on a tree was presented, telling the reader that such a person is accursed of God. With those two final thoughts in mind, we can ask, “How is God glorified?” And we can answer: “It is by demonstrating His works in, through, and for His people.” In John 9, we read –

“Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. ² And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’
³ Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. ⁴ I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. ⁵ As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’” John 9:1-5

Jesus came to do the works of God. One of those works was to take upon Himself the punishment that His own people deserved for their stubborn and rebellious nature before God, their Father. As we noted, the words translated as “stubborn” and “rebellious” in verse 18 are used again and again of Israel – the people under the law.

The word “rebellious” was even used of Moses and Aaron who represent the law. Explicitly, sin is an issue that must be dealt with. But what is implicit is that the law is the main issue that must be dealt with.  As Paul says, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Israel is under law, they violate the law even to the point of being stubborn and rebellious, and thus they deserve the penalty of stoning levied upon such a son. But before that, they were chastened in order to correct them. It is a chastening that Israel did not heed, just as the disobedient son did not heed.

As we saw, the word translated as “chastening” was used of them time and again, but it did not produce proper conduct, just as it did not in the case of the rebellious son. However, in their place, God chastened Christ, as we saw in 118^th Psalm, a messianic psalm.

Because of this, Israel deserved the penalty of the disobedient son – stoning to death. However, they have been spared that penalty because Another took their place. The account said that the parents were to take their disobedient son before the elders and to the gates (the place of judgment) of the city. Christ fulfilled that –

“And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. ⁵⁸ But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.
⁵⁹ Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death.” Matthew 26:57-59

&

“When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.” John 19:13

As I noted, there was a stress on the fact that when speaking of the disobedient son, it repeated the word iro, or “his city.” This becomes a veiled reference to the deity of Christ, as is noted in Matthew 5, where Christ speaks of the Lord –

“But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; ³⁵ nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.” Matthew 5:34, 35

After that, and when he is brought to the place of judgment, the parents state the following: 1) “This son of ours,” a term applied to Israel by the Lord (e.g., Exodus 4:22); 2) is “stubborn and rebellious,” both words – as we have already seen – commonly applied to Israel by the Lord; 3) “he will not obey our voice,” words spoken about Israel so many times it isn’t worth the effort to count; 4) “he is a glutton and a drunkard,” words which certainly applied to Israel, and yet a term directly applied by Israel to the Lord –

“For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ ³⁴ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ ³⁵ But wisdom is justified by all her children.” Luke 7:33-35

In such a state, a state that applied to Israel, and which the Lord assumed in their place, such a Son was to be taken out and stoned. The way this came about was to accuse Him of blasphemy. The same penalty for being a stubborn and rebellious son (Israel) is given for one accused of blasphemy –

“And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.” Leviticus 24:16

And this is exactly what the leaders of Israel accused Him of –

“Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, ‘He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! ⁶⁶ What do you think?’
They answered and said, ‘He is deserving of death.’” Matthew 26:65, 66

However, because they, Israel at the time of Jesus, were not allowed to execute their wrongdoers, the words of the final two verses are given – that of hanging a person. This is seen in John’s gospel. First, the note of why He is not stoned –

“Then Pilate said to them, ‘You take Him and judge Him according to your law.’
Therefore the Jews said to him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,’ ³² that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die.’” John 18:31, 32

And next, the formal charge once again, supposed blasphemy –

“The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.’” John 19:7

The deserved penalty of stoning a stubborn and rebellious son, Israel, was imputed to Christ. As we saw earlier, what is necessary is the voice of the parent – be it one or two. There is nothing in the law that speaks of stoning such a person apart from the witness of the parent who has the moral right to testify against the son.

The Father witnessed against Israel, his son, through the prophets. The law, as a mother, witnessed against Israel as well, a precept implied in Solomon’s words of Proverbs 6:20 (and elsewhere) –

“My son, keep your father’s command,
And do not forsake the law [torah, fem. noun] of your mother.”

But God graciously substituted Christ Jesus in their place. As stoning could not take place, the Lord was crucified on a tree.

Hence, seeing this in advance, the Lord placed these final verses into this chapter in order to complete the narrative of what Christ has done for His people. Christ was hung, but according to the law, His body had to be taken down before sunset.

Though He was crucified by Romans who were not bound to this precept, the Lord foresaw that day and spoke these words through Moses now. Of this, in relation to Christ’s cross, John says –

“Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.” John 19:31

The Sabbath, meaning Saturday which began at sundown, was nearing. In order to ensure these men did not remain on the cross, their deaths were to be expedited. When they came to Christ, however, He had already died. Thus, all were removed before the coming of the new day so that the land would not be defiled.

But this defilement was not because of Christ’s sin! Rather, it was for the sin of Israel and, indeed, the whole world –

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21

Paul explicitly states and explains this in Galatians 3 by referencing this exact passage from Deuteronomy –

“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), ¹⁴ that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Galatians 3:13, 14

The Jews, understanding the law, did not want the bodies of those crucified to remain on the cross and thus defile the land, especially over the Sabbath and during the feast. Little did they know that the curse of sin attached to the body of Christ was theirs, not His.

As I said twice, and now amend and repeat for the picture to be understood, what Moses wrote out was to underscore the need to end punishment for even such a vile offender, Israel, so that they would not assume that their punishment of Christ could exceed the boundaries of God’s grace and mercy… toward them.

Of this act of being hung on a tree, Matthew Henry says –

“Those who see a man thus hanging between heaven and earth, will conclude him abandoned of both, and unworthy of either.”

Israel stood looking at their own sin when they beheld the crucified Christ. It is they who were abandoned of heaven and earth, and it is they who were unworthy of either. And yet, Christ did what He did for them… and for you, and for me.

As we saw, the first and last verses of the chapter speak of defilement of the adamah, or earth, because of death. The death is the result of sin, and the sin is the result of the law. It is from the adamah, or earth, that Adam was fashioned. Thus, if the earth is defiled, those who are from the earth are defiled.

What we need is a new birth, from a heavenly Source, in order to be cleansed of our defilement. That is what Christ came to do, and that is what the gospel of Jesus Christ conveys to us.

He accomplished this and now offers, to any who will simply receive what He has done, the gift of eternal life. Let us be wise and let us receive that wondrous gift. In this, we will put behind us the defiled earth and partake of that incorruptible and undefiled inheritance that Peter spoke of in our text verse today. The choice is yours. Choose wisely.

Sometimes I imagine
that You came Lord,
so many gathered
to hear your voice,
and I am frozen,
and standing still.
How can that be
my King came for me?

I fall on the ground,
my heart pounding hard,
I’m overwhelmed
by You at my sight.
I’m sobbing and shaking
soaked in my tears.
How can that be
my Lord came for me?

And I am still
frozen in awe,
filled to a brim
with Your precious love.
I can’t comprehend.
I fall at Your feet.
How can that be Lord,
You came for me?

On that old tree
long time ago
You took my sins
to save my soul.
You suffered and died
that I can be freed
to live my true life
when You’ll come for me. Izabela Bednara

Closing Verse: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— ²³ Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ²⁴ whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.” Acts 2:22-24

Next Week: Deuteronomy 22:1-12 Be sure to watch your ways… (That You May Prolong Your Days) (64^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.

He Who Is Hanged Is Accursed of God

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son
Who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother
And who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them
Bad news is coming to him, O brother

Then his father and his mother shall take hold of him
And bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city
And they shall say to the elders of his city
‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; it truly is a pity

He will not obey our voice
He is a glutton and a drunkard, his life choice

Then all the men of his city
Shall stone him to death with stones, O my dear!
So you shall put away the evil from among you
And all Israel shall hear and fear

“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death
And he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree
His body shall not remain overnight on the tree
But you shall surely him that day bury

So that you do not defile the land
Which the LORD your God is giving you
———-the land on which you trod
As an inheritance, please understand
For he who is hanged is accursed of God

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…

 

 

 

 

 

¹⁸ “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, ¹⁹ then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. ²⁰ And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ ²¹ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

²² “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, ²³ his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.

 

 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 21:10-17
The Rights of Wives in Israel

Some years ago, while doing Saturday mission work in the projects, one of the daughters of a family that we had come to know asked me to buy one of her newborn chihuahuas. Of course, I had no choice in the matter and was obligated to do so. The house still had room for one more, and so it would be wrong of me to not buy one.

When I looked into the box, I saw the most beautiful puppy I had ever seen, a light tan-colored one that was more than a delight to behold. He was stunning. There were four or five others as well. One of them was the runtiest looking dog anyone could imagine. She was the epitome of “the runt of the litter.”

Only a fool would turn down that beautiful little tan one. But I don’t mind being called a fool. I knew without a doubt that the runt would make the best dog I would ever have – and Hideko and I have had a lot of dogs together.

So, I grabbed the runt, paid the fee, and brought her home. When I showed her to my friends Sergio and Rhoda, Rhoda asked if she could name it. Being asked kind of obligates you to say, “Yes,” and so she named her Miri – short for Miriam.

Text Verse: “And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” Hebrews 5:9

A week or two after buying Miri, I got a call from the girl who owned the chihuahuas. She said, “Uncle Charlie, someone brought one of the chihuahuas back and said that they just couldn’t take care of it. Will you buy this one too?”

Of course, I had no choice in the matter and was obligated to do so. The house still had room for one more, and so it would be wrong of me to not buy that one as well. It was that most beautiful of all in the litter. He is a wonderful dog, though a bit stupid. And he will not listen to me when I tell him it’s time to come inside.

His name is Pi Shnai. Both are wonderful dogs, but Miri really is special. I knew she would be. Every week at the end of our weekly news report, a picture of her closes out the video. She’s a superstar, being seen by many people around the world each week.

Dogs are really special. They, in their own way, reflect a little part of their Creator in that they will always forgive you when you belong to them (yes, they seem to take over in that way), and they are always happy to see you when you return to them.

You may wonder why I brought them up in the intro as I did. Well, stick around and you will get clued into that soon enough. 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. She Shall Be Your Wife (verses 10-14)

¹⁰ “When you go out to war against your enemies,

As a correction, the word is singular – enemy – because in the next clause it says in the singular, “delivers him,” not “them.” It’s an important point missed by all twenty-eight versions I referred to for this sermon.

The guidelines now to be presented are not intended to apply to those within the borders of Canaan. This is only to be in regard to wars against those outside of the land itself. The reference for that will be cited now in order to set the stage for what lies ahead –

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, ² and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. ³ Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. ⁴ For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the Lord will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. ⁵ But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire.” Deuteronomy 7:1:5

Not only were the people told what to do, they were explicitly told why it was to be so. The anticipation of these words is that Israel is engaging in war, outside of Canaan and with a nation not forbidden for them to intermingle with. If such is the case…

^{10 (con’t)} and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand,

The word “them” should be “him.” It is third person, masculine, singular. As far as the words themselves, Moses does this repeatedly, stating that it is the Lord who delivers. He just said that Israel is going into battle, and yet the victory can never be assumed apart from the Lord’s allowance.

Israel has its responsibility to engage the war, if indeed the war is to be engaged, but the victory is not because of their power, skill, or military superiority. It is solely because the Lord delivers the enemy into their hands. Speaking of the defeat of Israel, Moses says in Deuteronomy 32 –

‘How could one chase a thousand,
And two put ten thousand to flight,
Unless their Rock had sold them,
And the Lord had surrendered them?” Deuteronomy 32:30

Moses’ words now are a reminder that the victory belongs to the Lord. Israel is to remember this. If the victory is attained…

^{10 (con’t)} and you take them captive,

Again, it is third person, masculine, singular: v’shavita shivyo – “and you take captive his captivity.” It is a poetic way of saying that the entity which had its own victories and held its own captives has now become captive. David, probably thinking of this verse right now, penned this in Psalm 68 –

“You have ascended on high,
You have led captivity captive;
You have received gifts among men,
Even from the rebellious,
That the Lord God might dwell there.” Psalm 68:18

Paul then cites this verse from the psalms in Ephesians 4 –

“Therefore He says:
‘When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men’” Ephesians 4:8

Those who were once the captors (called the abstract “captivity”) had themselves been made captive. They were now the subdued prisoners who were conducted in bonds during the triumphal procession to the victor’s spot of exultation.

Quite often the words in Ephesians are incorrectly cited as a display of the prisoners being released from captivity by the work of Christ. Though this is something He did, it is not what is being referred to there.

Rather, as can be seen from Moses’ words of Deuteronomy, it is the foes of God being brought into captivity. In that captivity, one of the spoils of war is next highlighted…

¹¹ and you see among the captives a beautiful woman,

v’raita ba’shivyah eshet yephat toar – “and you see in the captivity woman beautiful in form.” Women are a spoil of war, which, according to custom – and as is seen elsewhere in Scripture – became slaves of the victors.

In this, the victorious side has the right to take them as if they were any other type of property. Although this may seem offensive to us now, it is still a common thing in parts of the world today, and it is how these things simply work. In the case of Israel, the battle is won, they have taken captive the captivity, and then a man sees a woman captive…

^{11 (con’t)} and desire her

v’khashaqta bah – “and are attached to her.” The word khashaq comes from a root signifying to be joined to. He is drawn to her to the point where he is attached to her even in love…

^{11 (con’t)} and would take her for your wife,

Some women were taken as slaves, but in this case, the man actually wants her for his own wife. In this case, she is given unusual protections that would not otherwise be found among other nations. They are points of law, and they must, therefore, be adhered to as such. First…

¹² then you shall bring her home to your house,

This is a sign of laying claim to her. She is a spoil of war and now belongs to him. The claim on her is made, thus precluding anyone else from making one. Once there…

^{12 (con’t)} and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.

v’gilekha et roshah v’asetah et tsiparenekha – “and she shall shave her head and do her nails.” For such seemingly simple words, there is neither agreement on what is being said nor what the purpose of the rites are. The shaving of the head is not in question, but the “doing” of the nails is.

Does this mean “trim” her nails? Does it mean “let them grow?” Does it mean paint her nails? And so on. Each is possible. And reasons for any option are given by scholars.

As for the purpose of them, the debate is equally unsettled. Some see this as a means of purification, such as when the head is to be shaved at certain times in Leviticus for purification. Others say these are given as signs of mourning.

Some say these are to make her ugly so that the man won’t lust after her during the period set by the law. Others claim that the rite is a sign of giving up her pagan life and becoming a new woman in the covenant of Israel. A clue to the general tenor of these rites is found in 2 Samuel 19 –

“Now Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king. And he had not cared for his feet, nor trimmed his mustache, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he returned in peace.” 2 Samuel 19:24

Mephibosheth purposely did not take care of himself as a sign of mourning. The entire time David was in exile, he simply let himself go as a sign of his allegiance to him. Regardless as to whether she was to cut her nails or let them grow long (according to whatever custom existed), nothing is said here of purification. Further, that would have been defined in Leviticus.

As far as making her ugly so that he wouldn’t lust after her, that seems pointless and a stretched interpretation. He is bound by law to leave her be for a set time. So, that would be otherwise unneeded. And giving up her pagan life and entering the covenant is assumed simply by the act of marriage.

Thus, this is certainly given as a sign of mourning. It is explicitly stated as much in the next verse. But this also identifies her as having a new authority, a new head over her. For now, more words of law are first given…

¹³ She shall put off the clothes of her captivity,

Again, there are at least two opinions on what this is saying. One is that the clothes of her captivity were her finest clothes because when captivity was inevitable, the women would put on their best in order to make themselves more attractive to their captors.

Another view is that these are garments signifying servitude that the victors would put over the captives. Or, leaving aside either of these, they could simply be the garments the woman normally wore, understanding that most people had one or two garments.

The first option is quite possible, and it would be for this reason that the woman caught the eye of the man in the first place. This is actually something that is recorded in 2 Kings 9 –

“Now when Jehu had come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she put paint on her eyes and adorned her head, and looked through a window. ³¹ Then, as Jehu entered at the gate, she said, ‘Is it peace, Zimri, murderer of your master?’” 2 Kings 9:30, 31

Unfortunately for Jezebel, all the mascara on the planet couldn’t cover over her wicked heart and deeds. As an exciting end to her rule, the words go on to say –

“And he looked up at the window, and said, ‘Who is on my side? Who?’ So two or three eunuchs looked out at him. ³³ Then he said, ‘Throw her down.’ So they threw her down, and some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses; and he trampled her underfoot.” 2 Kings 9:32, 33

Unlike Jezebel, however, the woman of captivity that found favor in the eyes of a victor by looking her best at such a time of crisis would then be allowed to put off her marks of beauty and exchange them for signs of mourning, including garments of sackcloth.

In other words, the entire point of these laws is directed to the authority of the man, and yet it reflects a merciful allowance upon the woman. Just as people had a period to mourn their dead, this woman is being given the same courtesy. With her physical condition reflecting the state of her soul, she was to…

^{13 (con’t)} remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month;

Whether her mother and father were dead or not in reality, they were as good as dead to her in her new state. She would probably never see them again. Thus, this is a merciful provision on a woman who was to enter into life among the covenant people.

As for the time, the Hebrew says yerakh yamim – “a month of days.” In other words, it didn’t go by a calendar month, as if the change from January to February was sufficient, even if it was only eighteen days. It was to be a full thirty-day period. Then…

^{13 (con’t)} after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

These words, as much as the explicit timeframe, show that the hair and nails clauses already seen were as signs of mourning and a changing of authority. A person’s hair will not grow back that much in thirty days. It is not the attractiveness of the woman, but the state of her heart, and the authority over her, that the law is concerned with.

Like in the laws concerning female servants found in Exodus 21:7-11, these verses do not deny that tragedy will befall people, nor do they deny that conditions of captivity or servitude exist. But what they do provide are allowances for a woman that were unheard of in other cultures, and which are more caring of the state of such women than countless cultures that still exist in our world today.

¹⁴ And it shall be, if you have no delight in her,

In other words, the appeal of the eyes doesn’t match the reality of the situation and she turns out to be a disappointment as a wife. If such is the situation…

^{14 (con’t)} then you shall set her free,

v’shilakhtah l’naphsah – “and you shall send her to her soul.” In other words, wherever she desires to go, she may go freely and without any coercion or mandate. To ensure that this is understood, Moses then says…

^{14 (con’t)} but you certainly shall not sell her for money;

There is a strong emphasis here: u-makor lo timkerenah ba’keseph – “and selling no you shall sell her in the silver.” She is a wife and not a possession. Because of this, she is to be treated as any wife of Israel was to be treated. This is a complete contrast to the regular allowances for slaves already set forth –

“And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. ⁴⁵ Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. ⁴⁶ And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves.” Leviticus 25:44-46

Though she came in as a captive, she is not to be sold off as one…

^{14 (con’t)} you shall not treat her brutally,

lo titamer bah – “no you shall sheave her.” Here, Moses introduces a new word into Scripture, amar. It means “to bind sheaves.” It comes from a root signifying “to heap up.” The idea here is probably that of the state of her life as it has progressed.

She was taken captive, she lost her family and culture, she was taken in as a wife and now she is rejected as a wife. Each of these has been as a sheaf of pain being added one upon another. Thus, he was not to add further pain on top of what she has experienced through selling her off as merchandise..

^{14 (con’t)} because you have humbled her.

takhat asher initah – “under which you have afflicted her.” The word anah, or afflict, gives the sense of looking down, or browbeating. Adding that to the words, “under which,” gives the sense of complete degradation. She has already been looked down upon, and by adding to her sheaves of pain, it would be completely degrading of her.

The entire passage is one of mercy upon the afflicted and care for the person. Where people read passages like this in Deuteronomy and find fault in what is presented, the opposite is true. Captivity for women in battle is the way things are.

It is a fallen world, and it is one where the women will often pay a high price in such a defeat. Just ask the Russian women when the Germans attacked, and just ask the German women when the Russians later responded. However, the Law of Moses gives them a set of protections not otherwise heard of.

A beautiful woman to be my wife
I’m set on making her mine
One to share the moments of life
From working at the mill to picking grapes from the vine

I have no doubt that I want this one
She is the one who is right for me
Soon the waiting will be over, and the deal will be done
This is how things are going to be

And once a wife, always a wife
That is how God sees it, despite how things may be
Once a wife, it is for life
From day one and off to eternity

II. The Son of the Unloved Wife (verses 15-17)

Here, we have an interesting transitional section. The previous spoke of the rights of a wife. The next (18-21) will deal with the issue of a rebellious son. This one between the two deals with both the protection of the wife and the son. As such, it begins with…

¹⁵ “If a man has two wives,

Of this and the coming verses, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary states that it –

“…seems highly probable from the other verbs being in the past tense – ‘hers that was hated,’ not ‘hers that is hated’; evidently intimating that she (the first wife) was dead at the time referred to. Moses, therefore, does not here legislate upon the case of a man who has two wives at the same time, but on that of a man who has married twice in succession, the second wife after the decease of the first; and there was an obvious necessity for legislation in these circumstances; for the first wife, who was hated, was dead, and the second wife, the favorite, was alive; and with the feelings of a stepmother, she would urge her husband to make her own son the heir. This case has no bearing upon polygamy, which there is no evidence that the Mosaic code legalized.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown

In other words, they are saying that nothing in the Law of Moses legalizes polygamy. This is an incorrect analysis, and it is not the intent of the Hebrew at all. Their analysis has been constructed based on an obvious bias against polygamy.

This is not a good way to figure out the intent of a passage. The case says nothing of a dead or divorced wife. It speaks of two wives without such regard.

Their argument about the Mosaic code not legalizing polygamy is an argument from silence. The precedent of multiple marriages is already seen in Genesis, and it is unknown if even Moses had two wives at the same time based on a statement made about having married an Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1.

Secondly, the passage concerning kings multiplying wives in Chapter 17 says nothing of only one wife but implies the heaping up of wives, and the reason for that is specifically given.

And more, if having only one wife was implied in the Mosaic code, there would not be the multitude of examples of polygamy found throughout the rest of the Old Testament, including a note from the Lord that He gave David the wives he possessed.

Even in the New Testament, Paul’s only restriction on polygamy is directed towards elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). As such, and looking at the matter objectively, having two wives is not at all frowned upon in Scripture.

Jacob started out his married life almost immediately with two wives (prior to the law). The father of Samuel, Elkanah, had two wives (after the giving of the law). And so on. This short section deals with a particular issue in such a circumstance.

Because the verse begins with the note of having two wives, the first issue of care is that of the wife. This is clear. Though dealing with the rights – meaning inheritance – of the firstborn, it still is clearly dealing with the rights, care, and remembrance of the wife.

If the husband dies and the wife continues on, the son of the greater inheritance will have more to tend to his mother. Further, the blessing of simply knowing her son will prosper is a merciful kindness to her. Therefore, the issue at hand is as much about care for the state of the woman as it is for the son. This is seen with the words…

^{15 (con’t)} one loved and the other unloved,

The Hebrew is more specific: ha’akhat ahuvah v’ha’akhat senuah – “the one loved and the one hated.” The word sane means to hate, and it can signify enemy, foe, odious, and so on. It is the same word used to describe Jacob’s attitude toward Leah in Genesis –

“When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.” Genesis 29:31

Jacob loved Rachel. However, his feelings toward Leah seem to be given in a comparative sense – hated in comparison to his love for Rachel. Whether that is the case here or not is not stated. It simply says that she is hated.

It should be noted that divorce has already been mentioned four times, showing that it is something both understood and possible. Later in Chapter 24, the allowance will be made explicit by Moses when he says that a man finds an indecency in his wife, he was allowed to give her a certificate of divorce and send her packing.

It may be that this is a comparative love/hate, or it may be that he really hates her. If so, one might think, “If he hates one of his wives, why doesn’t he just divorce her?” That is irrelevant to the case here.

She may be the best cook on the planet, and he just doesn’t want to lose that, despite hating her. He may be a cruel husband and just not want to see her enjoy life with another man. Or, he may be obligated to her, without possibility of divorce for his entire life for a reason that will be stated in the next chapter –

“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.” Deuteronomy 22:28, 29

The issue as to why he hates her is irrelevant. He is living with his two wives…

^{15 (con’t)} and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved,

Moses uses the same general terms again: ha’ahuvah v’ha’senuah – “the loved and the hated.” Both women have children that issue from him. For all we know, the children might be the reason for not wanting to divorce hated Helen. He just doesn’t want to upset the applecart for the sake of the family. Whatever. If such is…

^{15 (con’t)} and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved,

v’hayah ha’ben ha’bekor la’seniah – “and it is the son, the firstborn to the hated.” The meaning is obvious. The hated wife has borne him his first son. One could think of all kinds of things he could do to make her miserable, including taking it out on her and the son at the same time through the process of inheritance. Well, the law is way ahead of him in this regard…

¹⁶ then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons,

We generally think of passing on possessions to our children after our deaths, but this is not the idea expressed in Scripture. For example, this was already a culturally accepted norm. Abraham did it over four hundred years earlier –

“And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. ⁶ But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had; and while he was still living he sent them eastward, away from Isaac his son, to the country of the east.” Genesis 25:5, 6

Even in New Testament times, this was still practiced, such as in the parable of the prodigal son, this practice is clearly seen as being something that precedes the death of the person –

“Then He said: ‘A certain man had two sons. ¹² And the younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me.” So he divided to them his livelihood. ¹³ And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living.” Luke 13:11-13

There is a time when the parent divides up the possessions to his children according to a set cultural standard. One precept of that is now incorporated into the law itself as a protection for the firstborn, highlighting his rightful status regardless as to the father’s relationship with the mother. In this precept, he says…

^{16 (con’t)} that he must not bestow firstborn status

As at other times, the Hebrew reads in an interesting way: asher yiyeh lo lo yukal l’baker – “which he is not able to firstborn.” In other words, he is incapable of doing so because the law forbids it. This does not mean that he cannot do this for other – justifiable – reasons.

It has already been culturally established that such could be done for valid reasons. Jacob did this, as is intimated concerning his firstborn in Genesis 49 –

“Reuben, you are my firstborn,
My might and the beginning of my strength,
The excellency of dignity and the excellency of power.
⁴ Unstable as water, you shall not excel,
Because you went up to your father’s bed;
Then you defiled it—
He went up to my couch.” Genesis 49:3, 4

This is explicitly then stated in 1 Chronicles 5:1, 2 as well –

“Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel—he was indeed the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel, so that the genealogy is not listed according to the birthright; ² yet Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came a ruler, although the birthright was Joseph’s.”

Despite this, a father under the Mosaic code had no authority to do this simply out of partiality. He cannot bestow such a status…

^{16 (con’t)} on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn.

The prohibition is set, and the weight of the law would forever rest upon this precept. Any challenge to it would have to be for a just, legal, and accepted reason. Such a case of changing the firstborn status is recorded in 1 Chronicles 26 –

“Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons: Shimri the first (for though he was not the firstborn, his father made him the first), ¹¹ Hilkiah the second, Tebaliah the third, Zechariah the fourth; all the sons and brethren of Hosah were thirteen.” 1 Chronicles 26:10, 11

The reason for this father’s designation is not given. One thing that is certain, however. If the motive was arbitrary or vindictive, it could easily be appealed because of the precept of the law now being stated by Moses. The right of the firstborn is of such importance that the precept was to never be arbitrarily abused…

¹⁷ But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn

What Moses has done is turn the words of verse 16 around from the negative to the positive in order to provide emphasis –

* he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn
* he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn

In this, there is no legal wiggle room that may otherwise be conjured up by some perverse-hearted soul.

^{17 (con’t)} by giving him a double portion of all that he has,

latet lo pi shnayim b’kol asher yimatse lo – “to give him mouth two in all which finds he.” If you are still curious as to why I mentioned our dogs at the beginning of the sermon, I’ll let you know now. Moses uses the term pi shnayim, or “mouth two.” It is rare, being found only here, in 2 Kings 2:9, and in once more in Zechariah 13:8 –

“And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, ‘Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?’
Elisha said, ‘Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.’” 2 Kings 2:9

“And it shall come to pass in all the land,”
Says the Lord,
“That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
But one-third shall be left in it:” Zechariah 13:8

It signifies a double portion. When Cassandra called me up and asked me to buy a second dog, (of which I had no choice but to say, “Yes”), I needed a name. Well, we had one dog, and now there is another, a second portion. And so, we named him Pi Shnai, a poetically shortened form of the words pi shnayim.

Thinking up an introduction to a sermon can be a challenging thing, but not this time. Eventually, we’d get to these words, and it was as simple as telling you a story about two of our dogs.

This pi shnayim is a double portion as the rights of the firstborn. The idea is that if there were four sons, the inheritance would be divided into five equal parts.

From there, the firstborn would receive two parts while the others received one. Thus, when Jacob blessed Manasseh and Ephraim, Joseph’s two sons, he – by default – gave Joseph the pi shnayim, or “mouth double,” meaning double portion right of the firstborn.

The idea is as if the firstborn is given enough for two mouths to feed. In the case of Manasseh and Ephraim, that was literally true. That case was an exception, but under normal circumstances, it would be given to the firstborn…

^{17 (con’t)} for he is the beginning of his strength;

It is emphatic: hu reshit ono – “He, firstborn of his strength.” It is the same words that Jacob spoke upon Reuben in Genesis 49:3 that was cited earlier. However, Reuben lost his right as firstborn for his perverse conduct.

*^{17 (fin)} the right of the firstborn is his.

The word mishpat is used. In this case, it signifies a legal right indicating that this is the way it is to be. He was the first of the strength of his father, and therefore he is not to be denied the right of the judgment granting him the pi shnayim, the double portion.

Two wives for a man; there are laws for such
He has a responsibility that he cannot shirk
Even if one is greatly loved, and the other not so much
He must accomplish the law – that is his work

When the inheritance is to be divided up
The firstborn must be given his just due
He shall have a double portion, an overflowing cup
To this precept, the man must remain faithful and true

And it is good and right that it is so
The firstborn is the beginning of his strength as such
And so, he is to receive the double-portion, even though…
Yes, even if his mother isn’t loved so much

III. Pictures of Christ

The two passages today uniquely look back to the story of Rachel and Leah, probably as a means of helping us to understand why they are included in the law as they are, and thus how they point to Christ. In the first passage, Moses introduces the thought of taking captivity his captive. If you remember, it was in the singular – meaning a single enemy.

It is a way of saying that the enemy who held the captives is taken captive himself. Among his captives is a beautiful woman. The Hebrew is yephat toar – beautiful in form. It is the exact same phrase used of Rachel in Genesis 29 –

“Now Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. ¹⁷ Leah’s eyes were delicate, but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance.” Genesis 29:16, 17

If you go back to that sermon, you will be reminded that she was made to be a picture of God’s grace. This woman of the captives is brought into the people of Israel through marriage.

She goes through a rite in order for that to come about, and then she is made the wife of the victor. This is especially so because the passage itself speaks in the singular throughout.

The one marrying her stands as representative of any victor, and thus Israel. A premise is given that the husband may not have delight in her. This is simply a proposition of what may occur, it doesn’t say it actually ever will.

In fact, the man may remain crazy about her forever. The proposition is merely set forth as a possibility. If such is the case, it says that this husband is to set her free, but he is not to sell her “in the silver.” In the Bible, silver pictures redemption. The idea is that she is not to be unredeemed by him and thus redeemed by another.

Simply put, this short set of verses anticipates Christ’s victory over Satan and his choosing a bride beautiful in form, just as Rachel was. As Rachel pictured grace, so this chosen wife pictures the doctrine of salvation by grace as well.

Christ is the Victor over Satan – the enemy, Captivity. She was his captive, but she is given unmerited favor and brought into the commonwealth of Israel.

But that is not the main focus of what is being conveyed. The passage hinges on her rights, not his. Even if displeasing, she is never to be sold off again. As it says, she is set free l’naphsha, or “to her soul.” The purpose of this passage is to present to us the doctrine of eternal salvation.

A variety of verses in the New Testament speak of this, many in fact, but one that matches what is conveyed here exactingly is –

“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁵ deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 5:4, 5

The shaving of her head and the doing of her nails implies that she is now under the authority of a new head – her husband. This explains the meaning of the otherwise very complicated passage in 1 Corinthians 11 –

“For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man is not from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. ¹⁰ For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” 1 Corinthians 11:6-9

Her hair symbolizes headship and authority. Paul was probably thinking of this passage in Deuteronomy when he wrote out the words to the Corinthians. When one moves from Satan to Christ, the new authority is permanent.

As already stated, the words of Moses here are set forth as a proposition that may or may not occur. However, if it does, there are set limits on what may happen to the wife who is displeasing. And there are set limits on what may happen to a believer who is saved by grace.

The putting off the garments of her captivity means she is no longer under the captivity of Satan. She is granted a new status under Christ – His righteousness.

As far as Moses’ words concerning setting her free, this is an allowance of the Law of Moses, it is not what God originally intended for marriage. Jesus clearly indicates in Matthew 19 that marriage is to be a permanent arrangement. And so, even if this is an allowance under the law, for Christ – who embodies the law – it will never come to pass. The marriage is permanent.

Though displeasing (even if in the extreme) that person’s redemption will not be sold off again. That person is free to live his or her life, even being delivered to Satan again for destruction of the flesh, but ultimate freedom has been granted and it will not be removed. The saving of the person is guaranteed.

This is perfectly obvious from New Testament passages, but how sad it is that people still teach that one can lose his salvation. The Bible never speaks of such a thing – it forbids it.

In the second passage, two wives are mentioned. The same terminology is used of them as was used of Rachel and Leah – loved and hated. As Rachel (the loved) pictured grace, Leah (the hated) – if you remember – clearly pictured the Law. The pattern continues here.

The son of the unloved wife is the Son of the Law – Christ. He came through the law, He lived out the law, and He died in fulfillment of the law. In this, He was given a pi shnayim, or “mouth two,” meaning a double portion.

He redeemed those who were under law from the law, and He redeemed those who were not under the Law of Moses but who were still separated from God through the law of sin. This is what Paul is referring to in Galatians and Romans –

“Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, ² but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. ³ Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. ⁴ But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, ⁵ to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” Galatians 4:1-5

&

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Romans 8:28, 29

These two short passages today, though seemingly uninteresting except as a curiosity, and though found in the seemingly tedious book of Deuteronomy, are not at all uninteresting. And Deuteronomy is anything but tedious.

These verses were given to Israel to express matters of law for the conduct of the people. This is true, and they were matters of law to be obeyed. But, ostensibly, they may never have had such a scenario arise in the entire fourteen hundred or so years of their history.

Despite this, they were placed there as guides for the people, but they were more specifically placed there to show us what God has done, and what God is doing, for us in Christ. Christ is the purpose, and He is the reason for these things to be stated.

And in seeing what He has done, we can then see how we fit into the overall scenario of the redemptive narrative. Will we trust in Christ’s fulfillment of the law, or will we attempt (and fail) to be the one to try and usurp His status as the firstborn? Who would even think of such a thing!

And yet, it has happened since the beginning, and it continues on today when people attempt to merit God’s favor apart from Christ’s finished work.

And when we are in Christ, do we really trust that we are in Christ? Do we really believe that we have been brought into the commonwealth of Israel with an eternal guarantee? Or do we think that, displeasing as we may be to Him, Christ will sell us off once again? Who would even think of such a thing!

And yet, it has happened since the beginning, and it continues on today when people attempt to earn God’s favor apart from His finished work.

The fact is that if you can lose your salvation at any point after being saved, then it is not of grace, but of works. And if you believe your continued salvation is because of what you must do, then you do not understand what the word “grace” means.

But it is found here, right here in the book of law known as Deuteronomy, if you will just look for it. It is found here because this book looks to Christ. Let us do so too, to the glory of God who sent Him to redeem us. It is He who has brought us out from the power of the captivity unto Himself. Praise God for Jesus Christ who has done all these things for us.

Closing Verse: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” Galatians 2:20, 21

Next Week: Deuteronomy 21:18-23 The words seem unusual, even odd… (He Who Is Hanged Is Accursed of God) (63^rd 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.

The Rights of Wives in Israel

“When you go out to war against your enemies
And the LORD your God delivers them into your hand
And you take them captive
And you see among the captives a beautiful woman
———-yes, she is really grand…

And desire her and would take her for your wife
Then you shall bring her home to your house
And she shall shave her head and trim her nails
Before she can become your spouse

She shall put off the clothes of her captivity
Remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother
———-a full month of her life
After that you may go in to her and be her husband
And she shall be your wife

And it shall be, if you have no delight in her
Then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not
———-sell her for money, for sure
You shall not treat her brutally
Because you have humbled her

“If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved
And they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved
———-a certain difficulty
And if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved
Then it shall be…

On the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons
That he must not firstborn status adorn
On the son of the loved wife
In preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn

But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife
As the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has
For he is the beginning of his strength
The right of the firstborn is his, double… and all that jazz

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…

 

 

 

 

 

 

¹⁰ “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, ¹¹ and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, ¹² then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. ¹³ She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. ¹⁴ And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

¹⁵ “If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, ¹⁶ then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. ¹⁷ But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.