# commentaries

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the elders of that city who are nearest to the slain man must wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Washing hands was a protestation of innocence (<em><a href='B:230 26:6'>Psa 26:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 27:24'>Mat 27:24</a></em>). The comment that "<em>t</em>he guilt of blood shall be forgiven them" (:8) seems to suggest that they were somehow guilty until they protested their innocence. This runs quite contrary to the spirit of 'innocent until proven guilty' which we have observed elsewhere in the law of Moses. But the idea seems to be that clearly a sin had been committed, which the community had collective guilt and responsibility for. But God was eager to forgive this, and from then on, the community need no longer worry about any lingering sense of guilt or curse, of the kind which primitive communities tended to have. So this procedure was in some ways a concession to the weakness of Israel in having these pagan ideas and fears of guilt for unresolved murder. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they shall say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "We did not murder this one, and we do not know who did it". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Forgive, Yahweh, your people Israel whom You have redeemed, and don’t allow innocent blood to be among Your people Israel. The guilt of blood shall be forgiven them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :6. The red heifer is called a sin offering (<em><a href='B:40 19:9'>Num 19:9</a></em>), but we note that here it was not burnt neither was it offered upon an altar. It seems to look ahead specifically to the work of the Lord Jesus. As defined in more detail in <em><a href='B:40 19:1-22'>Num 19:1-22</a></em>, the ashes of the red heifer purified the impure / unclean, but defiled the clean. This is an intentional paradox, and is meant to highlight how the Lord's work can only benefit those who recognize their uncleanness. He is a doctor, and cannot heal those who consider they need no doctor.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So you shall put away the innocent blood from the midst of you, when you do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must read in an ellipsis here: "put away (the guilt of) innocent blood". We could read this as meaning that the community was guilty for having allowed a culture to develop in which murder happened. This is not the same as guilt by association, but the idea is that all of a society is responsible in some way if murder is committed. This sounds strange to the individualistic mindset of many modern people, but was appropriate to the collective mindset of people of the time. And indeed it seems God does recognize this as real guilt which needed some cleansing. Hence the guilt would be put away when and if they did what was right as a community; the ritual of itself would not cleanse, but it worked together, as it were, with a community which followed the culture of kindness inculcated by the law of Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you go forth to battle against your enemies and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands and you carry them away captive- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This presumably refers to the conquest of lands "far" from Israel, in the rest of the land promised to Abraham, beyond the borders of Canaan. For here it is envisaged that captives would be taken. Whereas the legislation of <em><a href='B:50 20:15'>Deu 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:19'>Deu 20:19</a></em> was to the effect that this would only happen in the areas "far" from Canaan, and all within Canaan was to be destroyed. God had spoken of the time when He would "enlarge" the land up to that limit (<em><a href='B:20 34:24'>Exo 34:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:20'>Deu 12:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:8'>Deu 19:8</a></em>). He presumably envisaged a 'stage two' of the conquest of that territory, but stage two was to be more lenient. The assumption was that all idolatry would be stamped out from Canaan, and Israel would be totally faithful to Yahweh. But this didn't happen, and so the planned "stage two" never happened. We see how God sets up potentials in great detail, but they may never happen because they depend upon human freewill. This is discussed more on <em><a href='B:50 20:15'>Deu 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:19'>Deu 20:19</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as all the animals and everything in the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham was 'delivered into the hands' of Noah (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em>), so the nations of that<em> eretz</em> were delivered into the hands of Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:31'>Exo 23:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:24'>Deu 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:2-3'>Deu 3:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:24'>Deu 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:10'>Deu 21:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:2'>Jud 1:2</a></em>). Tragically, like Adam in Eden (perhaps the same <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham) and Noah in the new, cleansed <em>eretz</em>, Israel didn't realize this potential. What was delivered into the hand of Joshua (<em><a href='B:60 2:24'>Jos 2:24</a></em>) actually wasn't delivered into their hand, because they disbelieved (<em><a href='B:70 2:23'>Jdg 2:23</a></em>); and this looks ahead to the disbelief of so many in the work of the Lord Jesus, who has indeed conquered the Kingdom for us. They considered the promise of the nations being delivered into their hand as somehow open to question, and only a possibility and not at all certain (<em><a href='B:70 8:7'>Jdg 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:2'>Num 21:2</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 21:34'>Num 21:34</a></em>). Some like Jephthah (s.w. <em><a href='B:70 11:32'>Jdg 11:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 12:3'>Jdg 12:3</a></em>), Ehud (<em><a href='B:70 3:10'>Jdg 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 3:28'>Jdg 3:28</a></em>), Deborah (<em><a href='B:70 4:14'>Jdg 4:14</a></em>), Gideon (<em><a href='B:70 7:15'>Jdg 7:15</a></em>) did, for a brief historical moment; but as individuals, and their victories were not followed up on. Instead they were dominated by the territory. And so instead, they were delivered into the hands of their enemies within the <em>eretz</em> (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 13:1'>Jdg 13:1</a></em>).<em>&nbsp;&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire to her and would take her to you as a wife-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Throughout the Old Covenant there is the repeated stress that Israel were not to marry Gentiles. This was so far from the Biblical ideal of marriage. But then there is a concession to their likely weakness in <em><a href='B:50 21:11-15'>Deu 21:11-15</a></em>: If they saw a beautiful woman among their enemies whom they liked, they had to put her through certain rituals, and then they could marry her. See on <em><a href='B:50 20:14'>Deu 20:14</a></em>. The legislation in :11-14 is unique amongst the surrounding nations, where women were seen as objects of booty and were treated with far less sensitivity than this and usually raped in this situation. Likewise the law of :18-21 teaches equal reverence for <em>both</em> parents and not just the father.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then you shall bring her home to your house. She must shave her head and pare her nails-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The only provision for marrying a Gentile involved her going through a process of separation from her parents, reconciling herself to the fact she would never see them again, and making her realize that because she was outside the covenant, she was to be treated like a leper or defiled person (<em><a href='B:50 21:11-12'>Deu 21:11-12</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 6:9'>Num 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:9'>Lev 14:9</a></em>). Only once she had learnt this lesson could she enter into covenant with God's people and be married.&nbsp;The woman was to remove all her cosmetic beauty, so that she were married for who she was as a person and not because of any surface level attraction.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and put off the clothing of her captivity and remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you shall go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was so radically different to the surrounding ideas of victory and spoil, whereby women were grabbed as trophies and slept with immediately as a sign of dominance. The value and meaning of the human person is powerfully reflected throughout the Mosaic law.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you have no delight in her, then you must let her go where she will, but you must not sell her at all for money. Since you have humbled her, you must not deal with her as a slave- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, as noted on :13, this breathes the need for deep respect of the personhood of the woman. This was quite contrary to surrounding ideas of taking spoil, where the whole idea was to "humble" those conquered. "Humbled her" is the word used of how the Egyptians had afflicted the Hebrews (<em><a href='B:20 1:11-12'>Exo 1:11-12</a></em>). Repeatedly, Israel were taught that they were to remember the state they had been in prior to their redemption from affliction; and redeem others from their affliction on that basis, and never to afflict people as Egypt had done to them. All this is an abiding principle for us. True redemption of others has to be rooted in an awareness of our own affliction. This is particularly necessary for those who were as it were schooled into Christ by reason of their upbringing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the firstborn son be hers who was hated- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This legislation was only operable if the man recognized that he hated (possibly meaning 'to love less') one of his wives. Husbands would likely claim that this was not the case. The law of Moses is unique amongst legal codes in that it judges the attitudes of the heart, and legislation such as this requires total internal honesty in order to function. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then in the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has, he must not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies that a father could "cause his sons to inherit" before his death, and we see this reflected in the parable of the prodigal son in <em><a href='B:490 15:1-32'>Luk 15:1-32</a></em>. We marvel at the internal corroboration within the Biblical record. But in :18-20 we then notice another allusion to this section of scripture by the Lord in His parable. We wonder whether the two sons of the parable refer to the two sons envisaged here, the first male children born by each of his two wives. And again we can no more than wonder whether there is some reference to Jacob and Esau, Jacob being beloved by God whereas Esau was hated or loved less (<em><a href='B:520 9:13'>Rom 9:13</a></em>). One point of the parable's allusions to this section is to show that God, the Father, doesn't keep His own law because His grace and passionate love takes Him beyond mere legalism.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, 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- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This means that in a situation where there were two sons, the younger son’s share was one third. In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son is given <em>half </em>– such was the Father’s love for him. This element of unreality in the parable is to signpost the amazing level of love the Father has for us; even when He knows that we will waste what He gives, still He gives, and gives generously. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At the very end, Jacob's blessing of Joseph's sons as the firstborn is seen as an act of faith (<em><a href='B:10 48:5'>Gen 48:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:21'>Heb 11:21</a></em>). Yet on another level, Jacob was taking the blessings away from the firstborn who was the son of the wife he disliked, and giving those blessings to the son of his favourite wife, who was not the firstborn. This was quite contrary to the will of God as expressed in <em><a href='B:50 21:17'>Deu 21:17</a></em>. At best we can say that God allowed one principle to be broken to keep another (although what other?). At worst, Jacob was simply showing rank favouritism, and yet at the same time he foresaw in faith the Messianic suggestions in Joseph's experience, and therefore made Joseph's sons the firstborn. God saw the good in Jacob at this time, and counted this to him, and recognized and worked with Joseph's decision to make "the son of the hated" the firstborn (<em><a href='B:130 5:1'>1Ch 5:1</a></em>), even though this may have been contrary to God's highest intentions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father nor the voice of his mother and, though they chasten him, will not listen to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are left to imagine in what tone of voice Moses said that. Israel had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh through disbelief, and therefore couldn't enter Canaan (<em><a href='B:50 1:26'>Deu 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:7'>Deu 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23-24'>Deu 9:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:4'>Num 27:4</a></em>); they were as the rebellious son who rebelled against his father's commandment (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 21:18'>Deu 21:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:20'>Deu 21:20</a></em>). For he himself had rebelled against the commandment of Yahweh and because of this was also barred from entering Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 20:24'>Num 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 27:14'>Num 27:14</a></em>). One reason for this was that he had called the Israelites "rebels" (<em><a href='B:40 20:10'>Num 20:10</a></em>), and no sooner had he done so, than he himself rebelled against Yahweh's commandment just like them, but in a different way. I will explain on :21 that the judgment of stoning implied false teaching. The terms "stubborn" and "rebellious" are associated with idolatry, and so it seems to me that the disobedience was more than simple disobedience to domestic commands, but rather an intentional, conscious desire to teach idolatry and rebel against the covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his town- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :20. "Then shall..." need not be read as absolute command; for the parable of the prodigal son features the Father running beyond the gate of the town in order to escort his wayward son home, rather than allowing him to fall into the hands of the elders of the city as he passed through the gates. We cannot just disregard Divine commandment, but it is also so that the way of grace is above legalism and literalism. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall tell the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is exactly how the prodigal son is described. And we have noted many points of contact between that parable and this section of the law. One point of the parable's allusions to this section is to show that God, the Father, doesn't keep His own law because His grace and passionate love takes Him beyond mere legalism. For instead of reporting the son to the elders and having him stoned, the Father showers him with grace and acceptance. The older brother is presented as the one who wished to follow this law to the letter, and he thereby remains outside the Father's fellowship- by his own choice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the men of his city must stone him to death with stones. So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you, and all Israel shall hear and fear- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The use of stoning (<em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:5'>Deu 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:21'>Deu 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:21'>Deu 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:24'>Deu 22:24</a></em>) was to show their connection with the death of the apostate. It was to also make them realize that any attempt to deny the saving work of God in bringing them out of Egypt, or attempt to reverse it by returning them to bondage, was worthy of death (<em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>). We note that false teaching, enticing others to sin, is seen as the most serious kind of sin. I suggest therefore that the rebellious son in view was more than simply disobedient to his father's voice. As noted on :18, the rebellion in view may well have been in rebelling against the covenant and enticing others to worship other gods. The New Testament teaching about church discipline takes a similar approach; moral weakness of individuals was tolerated, although criticized; but those teaching such behaviour were condemned. Stoning resulted in the covering of the body with the dust of the earth, as if recognizing that the death being brought about was also to be the fate of all under the curse in Eden.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and is put to death and you hang him on a tree- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words (and :23) have been misunderstood as meaning that the Lord as a living being was under one of the Law's curses of condemnation, and "worthy of death". This cannot be. It must be remembered that crucifixion was a Roman, not Jewish method. The Deuteronomy passage was not written with reference to crucifixion, but rather to the custom of displaying the already dead body of a sinner on a pole as a witness and warning (cp. the display of Saul's body). Sin brought the curse; and so every sinful person who died for their sin was bearing the curse of God. They were to be buried quickly as a sign of God taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The Lord died the death of a sinner; He bore our sins, and therefore our curse (<em><a href='B:550 3:13-14'>Gal 3:13-14</a></em>). Every condemned sinner whose body had been displayed had been a type of the sinless Son of God. He was exhibited there for one or two hours (until Joseph got the permission to take the body), totally, totally united with sinful man. And then, because God had no pleasure in this condemnation of sin, the body was taken and buried. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>his body must not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day (for cursed of God is he who is hanged on a tree), so that you don’t defile your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Jews "slew (Jesus) and hanged (him) on a tree" (<em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>). There seems to be a distinction here; as if the 'slaying' was an ongoing process in His ministry, crowned by the final hanging on the tree. Paul speaks similarly in Galatians; as if the body was already dead when it was lifted up on the tree; for he quotes the Mosaic law regarding the body of a dead criminal being displayed on a tree as if it was descriptive of the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An interesting point comes out of the Greek text of <em><a href='B:490 23:39'>Luk 23:39</a></em>: "One of the criminals who were <em>suspended</em> reviled him" (Diaglott). Ancient paintings show the thieves tied by cords to the crosses, not nailed as was Christ. <em>Hanging</em> on a tree became an idiom for crucifixion, even if nails were actually used (<em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:39'>Act 10:39</a></em>). If this were so, we see the development of a theme: that the whole ingenuity of man was pitted against the Father and Son. Christ was nailed, not tied; the tomb was sealed and guarded; the legal process was manipulated; the Lord was flogged as well as crucified.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here that one dimension of crucifixion on a tree was public shame and public instruction. These were all aspects of the Lord's death. <em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em> had commanded this taking down bodies of criminals from the tree where they were exhibited, by evening; even condemned criminals were to be shown some respect. For after dark wild animals and birds would have eaten them. We see here reflected how God truly takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We need not unduly fear condemnation, for God doesn't want to condemn people.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words have been misunderstood as meaning that the Lord Jesus as a living being was under one of the Law's curses of condemnation. This cannot be. Crucifixion was a Roman, not Jewish method. The Deuteronomy passage was not written with reference to crucifixion, but rather to the custom of displaying the already dead body of a sinner on a pole as a witness and warning. Sin brought the curse; and so every sinful person who died for their sin was bearing the curse of God. They were to be buried quickly, as a sign of God taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Jesus died the death of a sinner; He bore our sins, and therefore our curse (<em><a href='B:550 3:13-14'>Gal 3:13-14</a></em>). Every condemned sinner whose body had been displayed had been a type of the sinless Son of God. He was exhibited there for a few hours, totally united with sinful man. And then, because God had no pleasure in this condemnation of sin, the body was taken and buried.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Luke saw a link between the Lord’s death and His whole life when he says that they had been “eyewitnesses" of the Lord’s ministry, using the Greek word for autopsy- Luke saw his record of the Lord’s life as being an autopsy of His death (<em><a href='B:490 1:2'>Luk 1:2</a></em>). Perhaps this idea explains why Paul likens the Lord on the cross to the body of the criminal lifted up <em>after</em> death, not in order to lead to death (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>)- as if he understood the Lord to have been effectively dead unto sin at the time the body was lifted up on the cross. He was there the propitiation for our sins, and yet He is that now, each time we sin (<em><a href='B:690 2:1'>1Jn 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:10'>1Jn 4:10</a></em>). Paul speaks similarly in Galatians; as if the body was already dead when it was lifted up on the tree; for he quotes the Mosaic law regarding the body of a dead criminal being displayed on a tree as if it was descriptive of the Lord’s death (<em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>). The veil symbolized the flesh of the Lord; and yet in it was woven scarlet, a symbol of His blood and sacrifice (<em><a href='B:20 27:16'>Exo 27:16</a></em>), which permeated His mortal life. The lesson is that the cross is a daily way of life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray and hide yourself from them; you must surely bring them again to your brother-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This penetrates psychologically to the very core of our inaction and frequent sins of omission- we hide the need we encounter from ourselves. We pretend we have not seen. <em><a href='B:240 28:27'>Pro 28:27</a></em> uses the same word: "He that gives to the poor shall not lack: but he that hides his eyes shall have many a curse" (as in <em><a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a></em> - "Deal your bread to the hungry.... hide not your eyes"). This theme of sins of omission is continued throughout the chapter in :8 and in connection with the woman who did not cry out when raped, for fear of social consequence, being punished with the same punishment as the rapist.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If your brother isn’t near to you, or if you don’t know him, then you shall bring it home to your house and it shall be with you until your brother seeks after it, and you shall restore it to him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One theme of Deuteronomy is the way in which Moses visualizes commonplace daily incidents which he could foresee occurring in Israel's daily life: here, coming across a stray animal on the way home from work; the man cutting down the tree and the axe head flying off and hitting someone; finding a dead body in a lonely field; a man with two wives treating one as his favourite; seeing your neighbour struggling to lift up his sick animal; coming across a bird's nest and being tempted to take the mature bird as well as the chicks home for supper; being tempted not to bother building a battlement around the flat roof of your&nbsp; new house; the temptation to take a bag with you and fill it up with your neighbour's grapes; the need to have weapons which could be used for covering excrement (<em><a href='B:50 19:5'>Deu 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:1'>Deu 21:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:15'>Deu 21:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:1-2'>Deu 22:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:4'>Deu 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:6'>Deu 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:8'>Deu 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:13'>Deu 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:5-6'>Deu 24:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:10'>Deu 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:11'>Deu 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:13'>Deu 25:13</a></em>). The sensitivity of Moses was just fantastic! His eager imagination of his people in daily life, his understanding of their everyday temptations, so superbly typifies that of Jesus.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So you must do with his donkey and with his garment and with every lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found; you must not keep it to yourself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "thou shalt not have power to overlook", as in :4 "hide yourself from them". The idea is that they were not to pretend they didn't notice that the lost item actually belonged to someone else. Time and again, the Mosaic law addresses issues of the heart. Here, self deception is specifically targetted. No other legal code pays so much attention to the heart; for Yahweh alone can judge human hearts and attitudes. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fallen down by the way and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him to lift them up again- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Hide yourself" as in :3 addresses directly the self deception of the human heart, pretending that we've not seen nor understood a situation. The Bible gives us helpful insight into human psychology and assists us in the practical business of being spiritually minded- for this is of critical importance to God. We see a situation that requires us to act in the way of love, and yet the 'devil' of our own mind tempts us to think that we didn't in fact understand correctly. Spirituality is about who we are when nobody's watching, and the situation here envisages encountering a situation which only we know about. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A woman must not wear men’s clothing neither should a man put on women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is to some form of sexual perversion. Perhaps this section is not simply random commandments thrown together. Maybe the theme which connects the commandments here is self deception (discussed on :3,4), persuading ourselves of another narrative which is untrue; for that is the root of much sexual perversion. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a bird’s nest happens to be before you in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the hen sitting on the young or on the eggs, you must not take the hen with the young-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As in :4, this envisages a situation encountered privately. The law of Moses legislates so often about cases which were intensely private, where there would be no witnesses. This is because this unique legal code is a contract between God (who is witness to all things) and His people. Who we are when nobody else is watching is the essence of true spirituality. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A theme of Deuteronomy is the way in which Moses visualizes commonplace daily incidents which he could foresee occurring in Israel's daily life: the man cutting down the tree and the axe head flying off and hitting someone; finding a dead body in a lonely field; coming across a stray animal on the way home from work; a man with two wives treating one as his favourite; seeing your neighbour struggling to lift up his sick animal; coming across a bird's nest and being tempted to take the mature bird as well as the chicks home for supper; being tempted not to bother building a battlement around the flat roof of your&nbsp; new house; the temptation to take a bag with you and fill it up with your neighbour's grapes; the need to have weapons which could be used for covering excrement (<em><a href='B:50 19:5'>Deu 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:1'>Deu 21:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:15'>Deu 21:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:1-2'>Deu 22:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:4'>Deu 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:6'>Deu 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:8'>Deu 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:13'>Deu 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:5-6'>Deu 24:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:10'>Deu 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:11'>Deu 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:13'>Deu 25:13</a></em>). The sensitivity of Moses was just fantastic! His eager imagination of His people in daily life, his understanding of their everyday temptations so superbly typifies that of our Lord!</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must surely let the hen go, but the young you may take to yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The bird could only be taken if it was devoted to its young and was willing to die with them, rather than flying away. Such loyalty was to be noticed and respected. This is how to 'do life' in a spiritual way- perceive the good even in the natural creation and learn from it.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Things 'going well / good' with Israel is the language of the Kingdom of God in <em><a href='B:50 8:16'>Deu 8:16</a></em> "to do you good / well at your latter end". It is associated with days being prolonged (<em><a href='B:50 22:7'>Deu 22:7</a></em>) and the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>), and Israel and the children somehow existing "forever" (<em><a href='B:50 12:28'>Deu 12:28</a></em>). So I deduce in the wish "that it may go well with you" a hint towards the eternal establishment of God's Kingdom based around Israel, what Paul terms "the hope of Israel". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you build a new house you must make a battlement for your roof, so that you don’t bring blood on your house if anyone falls from there-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a big principle here. We are responsible for the fall of others, to death or spiritually, if we do not take adequate care for them. That is a principle which alone can drive our entire life's work.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which you have sown, and the increase of the vineyard-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Forfeited" is AV "defiled". The idea of the Hebrew is sanctification. The whole fruit was to dedicated in this case- maybe to destruction, maybe to the priests. The commandments about not inappropriately mixing things are sandwiched between commandments about avoiding sexual perversion and inappropriate bonding, such as adultery, sex with a father's wife (:30), and the perversion of :5, which is also about inappropriate mixture of sexual behaviours. The idea of these commands about not mixing seed and animals may be as it were a fence around these laws. The fear was that this was going to be a subliminal temptation towards sin. Rather like the command not to plant trees near an altar of Yahweh, lest this lead to the subliminal temptation to worship the trees like an Asherah grove.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the basis for the command not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Cot. 6:14). As discussed on :9, there was nothing intrinsically sinful with such ploughing, although it would likely have been painful and frustrating for both parties. But it was a warning against inappropriate bonding. The donkey was an unclean animal, and the ox was clean. Clearly the lesson to be learned was that clean and unclean were not to be mixed, under the excuse of needing to work together in order to get a job done.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not wear mixed stuff, wool and linen together- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, as discussed on :9,10, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about this. Rather the idea was that in daily life, there was to be the lesson of separation and avoidance of inappropriate bonding. Just as the ox and donkey of :10 were clean and unclean which should not be mixed, it could be argued that "linen" came from Egypt (<em><a href='B:110 10:28'>1Ki 10:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 7:16'>Pro 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 27:7'>Eze 27:7</a></em>), whilst wool was the classic produce of Israel. "Mixed stuff" translates a word which appears to be of Egyptian origin.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make yourselves fringes on the four borders of your garment with which you cover yourself-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Each Israelite was to emulate the High Priest, who had such clothing. Daily reminders of spirituality are vital in the daily round of life; these fringes or tassles were to remind them to be obedient (<em><a href='B:40 15:37-41'>Num 15:37-41</a></em>). It is therefore significant that the sick woman of <em><a href='B:470 9:20'>Mat 9:20</a></em> took hold of the fringes of the Lord's garment, perhaps showing some appreciation of the fact that He alone was totally obedient. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and hates her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The clear implication is that sex was to follow marriage and not to happen beforehand (also :14). The hatred he feels is either because he doesn't find her a virgin (:14), or because having broken through the taboo and psychological barrier of intercourse, his previous love for her turns to hatred, as in <em><a href='B:100 13:15'>2Sa 13:15</a></em>, where intercourse made "love" turn to hatred, and he then wanted to slander her as an immoral woman in order to annul the marriage. This is a commonly experienced situation. And the Mosaic law addresses it. LXX "and dwell with her, and hate her" seems to begin this legislation with the hint that the man is likely the guilty one, getting angry with his wife after the honeymoon period is over, as is often observed in marriages. This taking the woman's side is never seen in other legislation of the time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and accuses her of shameful things and brings up an evil name on her and says, I took this woman and when I came near to her I didn’t find in her the tokens of virginity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The argument is weak, because if the token of virginity was a cloth (:17), then he would have been given this when they married. For him to sleep with her without seeing it, and then later demand it, would be strange. And no cloth is absolute guarantee of virginity. However the idea may be that the breaking of the hymen was supposed to cause bleeding which then stained the bed sheet, and the husband then gave this stained sheet to the parents (:15). If this didn't happen, the man assumed his wife was not a virgin. The bed sheet was unstained. But there was no evidence that was the sheet they had slept together on. And not every woman bleeds when she first has intercourse; and there is the possibility of menstrual bleeding too. The hymen is a fragile tissue with limited blood supply to it, and it can break for many reasons. In any case, it would surely be unreasonable to assume that a broken hymen meant a woman was a whore (:21). I conclude therefore that there must be implied in :20 a far wider examination of the situation, before the woman was declared a whore. Perhaps we are intended to discern that the "cloth" argument is suspect, and therefore the man is likely lying and seeking an excuse to end the marriage because he failed to truly love the woman; see on :13. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then shall the father of the young woman and her mother take and bring forth the tokens of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city in the gate- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB "the young woman's parents are to take the blood-stained wedding sheet that proves she was a virgin". This suggests it was the custom to give the sheet to the parents of the girl. But I have discussed on :13 that not every woman bleeds the first time she has sex. It's possible that the whole legislation is being given, in order to suggest the conclusion: "This is all so hard to prove, the way ahead is only love and forgiveness".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The young woman’s father shall tell the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to wife and he hates her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An accusation that the woman was a whore was a slander of her father and her family. And so often this happens- an individual dislikes another, and the slander raised against them makes social life impossible for the family. All because of the dysfunction of one individual against another.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and behold, he has accused her of shameful things saying, ‘I didn’t find in your daughter the tokens of virginity’, and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. They shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have discussed on :13 that the idea of a literal bed sheet from their first night sleeping together was hardly evidence of virginity. And it was hardly upon that basis that she could be judged to have been a whore (:21). I am not generally in favour of metaphorical or symbolic interpretations, but the Jewish rabbis are understandably insistent that to spread a cloth before people as evidence is an idiom for declaring the full facts of a case. Whilst a literal bed sheet may have been used, it was symbolic of far more. And that seems to me the only explanation that makes sense here. See on :20. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The elders of that city must take the man and chastise him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Chastise can mean to literally beat, or to sternly reprove with words. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Dowry was apparently considered to be 50 shekels (:29), so the man was being treated as a thief, who must restore twice the value he had stolen (<em><a href='B:20 22:8'>Exo 22:8</a></em>). He had sought to 'steal back' the dowry by claiming the woman was not a virgin.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because he has brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel, and she shall be his wife; he may not divorce her all his days-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reflects the seriousness with which God views slander. It was to be paid to the father- for slander hurts not only the victim but also their family. <em><a href='B:240 17:4'>Pro 17:4</a></em> has a piercing analysis of gossip: "A wicked doer gives heed to wicked lips, and a liar gives ear to a lying tongue". It's the wicked who listen to gossip. It's liars who pay attention to lies. By listening to gossip, we show what sort of a person we are. Those with an interest in lies or gossip end up lying and gossiping themselves. Both gossiping and listening to it are both therefore part of a serious downward spiral of behaviour; and they are related to each other. This is how serious this matter is. The seriousness of it was reflected in how the Law of Moses stipulated a huge penalty if a man sullied the name of his wife by falsely accusing her- he had to pay 100 shekels of silver, twice the bride price (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>). This was a heavy fine, double that for raping a virgin (:29).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ruling that he could never divorce her reveals how the Law of Moses operated on different levels. Divorce was only permitted for unfaithfulness, which was punishable by death. But this command suggests that divorce was permitted in practice for lesser issues.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Divorce was clearly possible under the Mosaic system. If a man's wife committed adultery he could have her killed; <em>or</em> he could put her through the trial of jealousy of <em><a href='B:40 5:1-31'>Num 5:1-31</a></em>, with the result that she would become barren; or he could divorce her (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:13'>Lev 22:13</a></em>). Within a Law that was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), unsurpassed in it's righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 4:8'>Deu 4:8</a></em>; and let us not overlook these estimations), there were these different levels of response possible. But there was a higher level: he could simply forgive her. This was what God did with His fickle Israel, time and again (<em><a href='B:350 3:1-3'>Hos 3:1-3</a></em>). And so the Israelite faced with an unfaithful wife could respond on at least four levels. This view would explain how divorce seems outlawed in passages like <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>, and yet there are other parts of the OT which seem to imply that it was permitted. It should be noted that there were some concessions to weakness under the Law which the Lord was not so willing to make to His followers (e.g., outside the marriage context, <em><a href='B:50 20:5-8'>Deu 20:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:59-62'>Luk 9:59-62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:18-19'>Luk 14:18-19</a></em>). He ever held before us the Biblical ideal of marriage. It was as if God gave these laws, intending purposefully that the way of grace was to be beyond them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if this thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have argued on :14 that the evidence of the "cloth" alone is suspect. The presence or absence of blood on the bed sheet the couple first slept on was no evidence that the woman was a whore (:21) and worthy of death. Therefore I think much hinges upon these words "If this thing be true". It must imply that a major investigation was made, as to why she appeared not to be a virgin when she married her husband. The punishment of a whore in :21 was only to be given if this had been established beyond doubt, far beyond the bed sheet evidence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house and the men of her city must stone her to death with stones, because she has done folly in Israel, to play the prostitute in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The use of stoning (<em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:5'>Deu 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:21'>Deu 21:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:21'>Deu 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:24'>Deu 22:24</a></em>) was to show their connection with the death of the apostate. It was to also make them realize that any attempt to deny the saving work of God in bringing them out of Egypt, or attempt to reverse it by returning them to bondage, was worthy of death (<em><a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a></em>). To act as a prostitute was to lead others into sin. We note that false teaching, enticing others to sin, is seen as the most serious kind of sin. The New Testament teaching about church discipline takes a similar approach; moral weakness of individuals was tolerated, although criticized; but those teaching such behaviour were condemned. Stoning resulted in the covering of the body with the dust of the earth, as if recognizing that the death being brought about was also to be the fate of all under the curse in Eden.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "turning her father’s house into a harlot’s" suggests that the "shameful things" she stood accused of (:17) were more than having slept with another village boy years previously. The accusation was that she was in fact a prostitute, hence the severe judgment, and the explanation on :17,20 that there was a major investigation made of the woman, far beyond the dubious evidence of a bed sheet with blood on it. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they must both of them die, the man who lay with the woman and the woman. So you shall put away the evil from Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are various ways prescribed for dealing with adultery under the Law of Moses. This was one of them. The trial of jealousy (<em><a href='B:40 5:1-31'>Num 5:1-31</a></em>) was another. Or the adulterous woman could be divorced. But the higher option, as practiced by Yahweh through Hosea, was to forgive and "play on". "They must... you shall..." were therefore all phrases open to interpretation. The very existence of different levels of response to God's principles of itself inspires us to reach up to the highest levels. For who can be a minimalist before the grace and love of God. Or we could argue that the stress is upon if the couple were "found lying" together, and therefore the public nature of the discovery required a stronger response. But the Lord dealt with such a case, and taught that although this command was true, the problem is that none are without sin, and therefore no man should in honest conscience seek to obey this commandment. His view of morality and ethics was far above mere literalistic, legalistic obedience to commandments. He seems to reason as if this commandment was inserted into the law to elicit in honest men an awareness that they could not in good conscience obey it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If there is a young woman who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As an example of unconscious allusion, consider <em><a href='B:490 1:27'>Luk 1:27</a></em>: “A virgin betrothed to a man”. This is right out of <em><a href='B:50 22:23'>Deu 22:23</a></em> LXX “If there be a virgin betrothed to a man…”. The context is quite different, but the wording is the same. And in many other cases, Luke picks up phraseology from the LXX apparently without attention to the context. He saw the whole of the OT as having its fulfilment in the story of Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you must stone them to death with stones; the woman, because she didn’t cry, being in the city, and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour’s wife- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rape is rarely a case of a man picking upon a random female victim. Usually there is an element of manipulation in forms other than physical forcing. But the woman in the case was to be condemned because she all the same didn't cry out and thus avoid penetration. She valued her image in society more than her marriage.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So you shall put away the evil from among you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“The evil one” in the Old Testament was always “the evil man in Israel” (<em><a href='B:50 17:12'>Deu 17:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:19'>Deu 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:21-24'>Deu 22:21-24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 5:13'>1Co 5:13</a></em>) – never a superhuman being, not any personal, superhuman Satan.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the man finds the woman who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then the man only who lay with her must die- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This gives the woman the benefit of the doubt, assuming she would have cried out, unlike the woman of :24. This giving the benefit of the doubt is to be part of our generally positive outlook upon people and the cases we encounter in life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but to the woman you shall do nothing; there is in the woman no sin worthy of death. For as when a man rises against his neighbour and kills him, even so is this matter- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "found her in the field" in :27 leads us to assume that the similarity is being drawn with a murdered body being found in a field. There was no evidence she hadn't called out, so she was not to be condemned without evidence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for when he found her in the field, the betrothed woman cried and there was none to save her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The assumption is that she cried. There was no investigation as to whether she had cried out or not. The law here is very protective to women and assuming their innocence, in stark contrast to the legal codes of the surrounding nations. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man finds a woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lays hold on her and lies with her and they are found- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no mention of her crying out, so we can assume that this may not refer to rape but rather a boyfriend / girlfriend situation where they were "found" or discovered, possibly through her falling pregnant. This is why the judgment was that they must marry (:29), which would be inappropriate if the man in view was a random rapist. The equivalent in <em><a href='B:20 22:16'>Exo 22:16</a></em> is "If a man entices a virgin who isn’t pledged to be married". The fault in this case is placed more with the man. The law here is again very protective to women and assuming their innocence, in stark contrast to the legal codes of the surrounding nations. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then the man who lay with her must give to the woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Divorce was allowed for adultery, so the implication is that if she committed adultery, then divorce was not to be an option. It was as if having wronged her, the man was to exercise maximum forgiveness to her if she were to wrong him. The tendency for the woman to 'hit back' at her husband in later life is here well understood by God, and leniency would have to be shown to her by the husband. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A man must not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These laws teach that nakedness should only be uncovered before your wife or husband. Uncovering nakedness is an idiom for the sexual act. The allusion is to Adam and Eve having their nakedness uncovered; we have to accept the situation we are in as a result of the curse, rather than having sexual relations with who we like, as if uncovering nakedness is nothing shameful. Our hope is for the curse put on us in Eden to be lifted at Christ’s return; we can’t lift it in this life, as our own ever insistent mortality reminds us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He who is wounded in the testicles, or has his privy member cut off, must not enter into the assembly of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps the point is that all those who are the Lord’s people must recognize their ability to procreate for Him, in the bringing forth of yet others in their Lord’s image. Males who could not procreate were barred from the congregation, possibly in prototype of how spiritual procreation was to be a vital characteristic of the future Israel. To bring forth spiritual children in the course of our life before God is expected of us. Israel were seen by the Lord as the tree by the roadside (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>), whose fruit should have been for all that passed by (<em><a href='B:50 23:24'>Deu 23:24</a></em>). But because there was not even the glimmer of this kind of giving of fruit, they were condemned by the Lord.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>An illegitimate person must not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>According to Talmudic writings like <em>Yebamot</em> 78b, <em><a href='B:50 23:2'>Deu 23:2</a></em> was interpreted as meaning that a fatherless man wasn’t allowed to enter the temple or marry a true Israelite. The reference to Jesus as&nbsp; “son of Mary” (<em><a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a></em>) rather than “son of Joseph” is, apparently, very unusual. It reflects the Lord’s lack of social identity in first century Israel; He had no father’s house to belong to. In passing, the jibe in <em><a href='B:470 27:64'>Mat 27:64</a></em> “the last deception shall be worse than the first” is likely a reference to Mary and Jesus claiming that He was the result of a virgin birth- this, as far as the Jews were concerned, was the “first deception”. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>An Ammonite or a Moabite must not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Yahweh forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This would have applied to Ruth, but so many of these laws of Moses had exceptions to them. It was as if God gave these laws, intending purposefully that the way of grace was to be beyond them. See on <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is because they didn’t meet you with bread and water in the way, when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you- </em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>says that the Edomites and Moabites sold Israel food and water as they passed through. But <em><a href='B:50 23:3-4'>Deu 23:3-4</a></em> says that the Moabites didn't do this and were cursed because of it. Perhaps a few Moabites did do so, but Moab generally didn't. But see note on <em><a href='B:50 2:29'>Deu 2:29</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Nevertheless Yahweh your God wouldn’t listen to Balaam, but Yahweh your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because Yahweh your God loved you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh did not behold iniquity in His people at this time (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). His love was shown in imputing righteousness to them; and as Paul explains in <em><a href='B:520 1:1-32'>Rom 1:1-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:1-29'>Rom 2:1-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:1-31'>Rom 3:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:1-25'>Rom 4:1-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:1-21'>Rom 5:1-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:1-23'>Rom 6:1-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:1-25'>Rom 7:1-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:1-39'>Rom 8:1-39</a></em>, the love of God is articulated through doing this to us too. <em><a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a></em> LXX speaks of Balaam's plural curses being turned into plural blessings, because God refused to listen to Balaam. We learn from this that Balaam wanted to curse Israel (for he so loved the money being offered for doing so), indeed be perhaps began to utter curses, but the Spirit of God overpowered him and made him utter blessings instead. We learn from this that the Spirit of God working upon a person is no guarantee of their personal acceptance with Him. And we marvel at how the love of money drove Balaam to attempt to do what he was clearly not intended to, i.e. to curse Israel. Maybe his unexpressed desires were read by God as a prayer, and to that prayer "Yahweh your God wouldn't listen" (<em><a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a></em>). Prayer is therefore not just in the form of spoken words; for then the more verbally articulate would be, as it were, better at prayer. God reads situations and unspoken desires as prayers. For this is what prayer "in the spirit" is all about.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And yet we read of how Boaz sought the peace and prosperity of Ruth, whom the record seven times stresses was a Moabitess. Clearly the value and meaning of the individual person was so great to God that exceptions could be made to such blanket policy positions. The simple take away is that God values the individual human person to a very great extent.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The brotherhood between Jacob and Esau (who is Edom) is so often recalled in the later Biblical records.&nbsp; This may be to remind Israel that they were no better than Edom; or to remind them of the need for reconciliation to be attempted.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as a foreigner in his land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Egyptians later abused the Israelites, but initially they were their saviours, in human terms, and were extremely generous to them. This commandment was therefore asking them to look back in history and see the past as a glass half full rather than half empty. This is a lesson which needs to be learned. For so many look back in their personal history and see only the abuse and the bad years, rather than appreciating the wider sweep of that history.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of the third generation who are born to them may enter into the assembly of Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may have been a form of God punishing people to the third generation (<em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>). This command is presumably time limited, referring to a specific starting point. Perhaps in view are members of the "mixed multitude" which went with Israel out of Egypt, and which would have been addressed at this point. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you go forth to camp against your enemies, you must keep yourselves from every evil thing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If there is among you any man who is not clean by reason of that which happens to him by night, he must go outside the camp. He shall not come within the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must be aware that starting in :9, we have here commands specifically relevant to Israel's military; "the camp" is the "camp against your enemies" of :9, referring to "camp" in a specifically military sense. The idea could appear to be that if a man needed to defecate, then he was to do so outside of the camp of soldiers. Having latrines outside the camp would have ensured hygiene within the "camp". But it seems that defecating is what is in view in :12. Therefore this specifically night time reason for uncleanness must refer to an involuntary emission of semen. Hence the reference to what "happens to him at night". Nobody apart from the soldier knew what had happened. Many of the Mosaic commands invited obedience from men on a very personal and intimate level; for nobody else apart from the soldier would have known whether or not this had happened. This was all designed to inculcate very personal obedience to and relationship with God.&nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:230 119:55-56'>Psa 119:55-56</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but when evening comes on he must bathe in water, and when the sun is down he shall come within the camp- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To have soldiers needing to remain ritually unclean outside the main camp of soldiers was not perhaps seen as the most effective use of soldiers in a conflict situation, where every man was required. But they were taught thereby that victory was not going to come in their own strength, but through obedience to God's ways. We likewise are tempted to think that careful obedience to God's commands will hinder our material progress in life. But the opposite is in fact true, and this commandment taught that.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must have a place also outside the camp where you shall go to relieve yourself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This unclean place "outside the camp" is alluded to in <em><a href='B:650 13:12-13'>Heb 13:12-13</a></em>: "Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside of the gate. Let us therefore go to him outside the camp, bearing his reproach". The place of crucifixion is likened to the place of "reproach", outside the camp, just as Jesus died outside the city walls of Jerusalem in an unclean place, Golgotha. His death was the climax of a life lived in careful attention to the most intimate requirements of God's laws, as discussed on :10. And we are to unashamedly "go forth" to Him there.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you must have a trowel among your weapons, and when you relieve yourself you must dig with it and turn back and cover that which comes from you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A theme of Deuteronomy is the way in which Moses visualizes commonplace daily incidents which he could foresee occurring in Israel's daily life: the man cutting down the tree and the axe head flying off and hitting someone; finding a dead body in a lonely field; coming across a stray animal on the way home from work; a man with two wives treating one as his favourite; seeing your neighbour struggling to lift up his sick animal; coming across a bird's nest and being tempted to take the mature bird as well as the chicks home for supper; being tempted not to bother building a battlement around the flat roof of your&nbsp;new house; the temptation to take a bag with you and fill it up with your neighbour's grapes; the need to have weapons which could be used for covering excrement (<em><a href='B:50 19:5'>Deu 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:1'>Deu 21:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:15'>Deu 21:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:1-2'>Deu 22:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:4'>Deu 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:6'>Deu 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:8'>Deu 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:13'>Deu 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:5-6'>Deu 24:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:10'>Deu 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:11'>Deu 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:13'>Deu 25:13</a></em>). The sensitivity of Moses was just fantastic! His eager imagination of His people in daily life, his understanding of their everyday temptations so superbly typifies that of our Lord!</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a clear similarity with a dog coverings its own excrement. The idea may be that in going to war, Israel were to remember that they were but unclean dogs, accepted by grace. Humility, rather than psyching up of soldiers in bravado, was what was required for victory. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for Yahweh your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy so that He may not see an unclean thing in you and turn away from you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In prospect all Israel's battles with the inhabitants of Canaan had been won by the Angels, and it was for them to live in a suitable way and to display enough faith to enable them to make use of these victories. For it was Yahweh through the Angel who walked in the midst of the camp. They were warned that if the camp were impure, Yahweh would turn (Heb.) "from following after you". This recalls how the Angel (who was perhaps dwelling over the ark in the shekinah glory) "went behind" (s.w. "followed") at the exodus (<em><a href='B:20 14:19'>Exo 14:19</a></em>), and "followed them" at the crossing of Jordan and conquest of Jericho (<em><a href='B:60 6:8'>Jos 6:8</a></em> s.w.). The word is also used in <em><a href='B:50 23:14'>Deu 23:14</a></em>, where Israel are warned that if they are unclean, then Yahweh will no longer follow them. They of course were bidden follow Him, but He is also presented as following them. And thus God's people hear His voice behind them, urging them to choose the right path (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 30:21'>Isa 30:21</a></em>); for He is not only their vanguard, but also their rear guard following them (<em><a href='B:290 52:12'>Isa 52:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:8'>Isa 58:8</a></em>). This indicates not only the mutuality between God and His people; but the sense that we are both following and being followed by Him, as it were sandwiched by His presence.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not deliver to his master a servant who has escaped from his master to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to remind them how they were escaped slaves. God wanted them to continually remember the way He had saved them (see too :7), and His law was designed to repeatedly prod their conscience about this in daily life. He wants us to live today in constant awareness of our salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He shall dwell with you, in the midst of you in the place which he shall choose within one of your gates, where it pleases him best. You must not oppress him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was no mechanism, therefore, for the master to regain a slave who ran away. Unlike most legal codes, the law was on the side of the slave and not of the owner. The master therefore needed to treat slaves well, so that they didn't want to run away. And if they did, he had no legal mechanism to get them back. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There must be no prostitute of the daughters of Israel. Neither should there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication is that the "Sodomite" refers here to a male prostitute, and the "prostitute" of the first half of the verse refers to a female prostitute. This is confirmed in :18.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not bring the hire of a prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of Yahweh your God for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Prostitution was forbidden under the Law (:17), but this is another tacit recognition made by Moses that such failure would still occur. We see here how Moses forbad something and then went on to give legislation recognizing that it would still occur.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not lend on interest to your brother, interest of money, of food or of anything that is lent- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Lending was therefore to be seen as an opportunity to help your brother rather than to benefit from him; indeed to lend without interest meant that effectively you were giving your brother something in his time of need.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To a foreigner you may lend on interest, but to your brother you shall not lend on interest, so that Yahweh your God may bless you in all that you put your hand to in the land where you go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus in His parable told the rejected man that he should at least have given His money to others on usury (<em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>). He may have meant that the man should at least have done <em>something</em> even if he broke the letter of the law; or He may have meant that if the man had at least shared the Gospel with the Gentiles and got some fruit for Christ, all his other lack of achievement would’ve been overlooked. The judgment is for the education of those judged. He will shew them how they should have given their talent, the basic Gospel, to others, and therefore gained some interest. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you make a vow to Yahweh your God you must not be slack to pay it, for Yahweh your God will surely require it of you and it would be sin upon you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was to guard against the temptation to make a vow which was publically impressive before men, but then not to pay it. Any attempt to garner kudos for our spiritual devotion is absolutely wrong; such spiritual pride is the worst. God would therefore "require it" and severely judge those who did this (<em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>). Not being slack to pay a vow (<em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>) fits in with a wider Biblical theme of being quick in responding to God. It comes to full term in the New Testament accounts of immediate baptisms straight after people had grasped the basic message of the Gospel. "Yes straight away" is what God really seeks from His children. Israel were not to delay in offering their firstfruits to God (<em><a href='B:20 22:29'>Exo 22:29</a></em>), lest their intentions weren't translated into practice. The disciples immediately left the ship, simply put their nets down and followed (<em><a href='B:470 4:20'>Mat 4:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:22'>Mat 4:22</a></em>); Matthew left his opened books and queue of clients in the tax office and walked out never to return (<em><a href='B:490 5:17-18'>Luk 5:17-18</a></em> implies).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if you forbear to vow, that will be no sin upon you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Sin" is often used to effectively mean "punishment for sin", as here. And this is another great Biblical theme, that sin is of itself its own punishment. This is why those condemned at the last day are effectively self condemned, and indeed judgment day is in this sense right now. For as sin is committed, so is the judgment for that sin, in God's eyes. But repentance and Divine grace can change that judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That which has gone out of your lips you must observe and do, according as you have vowed to Yahweh your God, as a freewill offering which you have promised with your mouth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :21. The Hebrew word here for "freewill" carries the idea of spontaneity. This is the clear implication of its usage in places like <em><a href='B:20 35:27'>Exo 35:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 36:3'>Exo 36:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:2'>Jdg 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:9'>Jdg 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:5'>1Ch 29:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 29:9'>1Ch 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 35:8'>2Ch 35:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 54:6'>Psa 54:6</a></em>. There is a strong sense of immediate emotion attached to the word (<em><a href='B:350 14:4'>Hos 14:4</a></em>). And there was a major emphasis in the law of Moses upon freewill offerings (<em><a href='B:30 7:16'>Lev 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:18'>Lev 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:21'>Lev 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:23'>Lev 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:38'>Lev 23:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 15:3'>Num 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 29:39'>Num 29:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:6'>Deu 12:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:17'>Deu 12:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:10'>Deu 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em>). The other legal codes of the nations around Israel were all about rituals; whereas Yahweh's law encouraged spontaneous giving as part of the way of Yahweh. For He is not a God of rituals, but of relationship. The way of the Spirit is the same today; spontaneous, emotional, personal response to God's grace, responding to Him on our own initiative and in our own way, in addition to obeying His specific requirements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fact that God’s word is true means that we also ought to be truthful- for we should speak “as oracles of God”. Moses surely intended a connection between his words recorded in <em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em> and <em><a href='B:50 23:23'>Deu 23:23</a></em> - for they are the only times he uses a particular Hebrew word translated “proceed” or ‘go out’, within the same speech uttered the same day: “By every word that <em>proceeds </em>out of the mouth of the Lord does man live… that which <em>goes forth</em> (s.w. “proceeds”) out of <em>your</em> lips / mouth you shall keep and perform”. The influence of continually hearing <em>God’s</em> word should be that <em>our</em> words are likewise truthful and trustworthy. The fact that the Bible as God’s word is true has implications for our own truthfulness. <em>Pistos</em> is listed as a fruit of the spirit in <em><a href='B:550 5:1-26'>Gal 5:1-26</a></em>; but the idea it can carry is not so much of faith in the sense of belief, but of faithfulness, loyalty, reliability, utter dependability. If this is how God’s words are to us, then this is how we and our words should be to others. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you come into your neighbour’s vineyard you may eat your fill of grapes at your own pleasure, but you must not put any in your vessel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were seen by the Lord as the tree by the roadside (<em><a href='B:470 21:19'>Mat 21:19</a></em>), whose fruit should have been for all that passed by (<em><a href='B:50 23:24'>Deu 23:24</a></em>). But because there was not even the glimmer of this kind of giving of fruit, they were condemned by the Lord. The command here and in :25 follows straight on from the command to honour the vows we make. Perhaps the sense is that we are not to fulfil our vows by taking grapes or grain from our brother. The abiding principle is that we are not to sacrifice that which costs us nothing (<em><a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a></em>). Sacrifice means being left "minus" in absolute terms, and not seeking to do so at the effective expense of others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you come into your neighbour’s standing grain you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not move a sickle to your neighbour’s standing grain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Boaz allowed foreigners to glean immediately behind his reapers, and then was personally generous in giving Ruth sacks of barley. He understood this law as a springboard into a culture of far more extensive grace, rather than a chain which limits human behaviour, to be tolerated and obeyed with reluctance. See on <em><a href='B:50 25:7'>Deu 25:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a man takes a wife and marries her, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her, he shall write her a bill of divorce and give it into her hand and send her out of his house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Divorce was clearly possible under the Mosaic system. If a man's wife committed adultery he could have her killed; <em>or</em> he could put her through the trial of jealousy of <em><a href='B:40 5:1-31'>Num 5:1-31</a></em>, with the result that she would become barren; or he could divorce her (<em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a></em> RV; <em><a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:13'>Lev 22:13</a></em>). Within a Law that was holy, just and good (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), unsurpassed in it's righteousness (<em><a href='B:50 4:8'>Deu 4:8</a></em>; and let us not overlook these estimations), there were these different levels of response possible. But there was a higher level: he could simply forgive her. This was what God did with His fickle Israel, time and again (<em><a href='B:350 3:1-3'>Hos 3:1-3</a></em>). And so the Israelite faced with an unfaithful wife could respond on at least four levels. This view would explain how divorce seems outlawed in passages like <em><a href='B:50 22:19'>Deu 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:29'>Deu 22:29</a></em>, and yet there are other parts of the OT which seem to imply that it was permitted. It should be noted that there were some concessions to weakness under the Law which the Lord was not so willing to make to His followers (e.g., outside the marriage context, <em><a href='B:50 20:5-8'>Deu 20:5-8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 9:59-62'>Luk 9:59-62</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:18-19'>Luk 14:18-19</a></em>). He ever held before us the Biblical ideal of marriage. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When she has departed out of his house she may go and be another man’s wife- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Himself spoke of how the Law's attitude to divorce was a concession because of the hardness of men's hearts. <em><a href='B:50 24:1-4'>Deu 24:1-4</a></em> allows divorce if a man “found some uncleanness” in his wife. This, the Lord comments, was a concession for the hardness of their hearts. But the passage moves on to say: “When a man hath taken&nbsp; <em>new </em>wife, he shall not go out to war...but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife” (:5). Taking a <em>new </em>wife seems a strange way to describe taking a first wife. It would seem that Yahweh through Moses is making a gracious concession to a man taking a second wife according to the concession laid down in the previous verses. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the latter husband hates her and writes her a bill of divorce and gives it to her and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband who took her to be his wife dies- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This seems to imply that divorce was even possible if a husband simply 'hated' his wife. Or we may assume that the divorce had to be because of unfaithfulness on her part (:1), and yet to divorce her for this was in fact read by God as 'hating' her. For the standard He sought to inculcate (see on :1) was forgiveness of the unfaithful wife, motivated in love for her- which was just how He treated Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>her former husband who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife after she is defiled, for that is abomination before Yahweh. You shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The prophets describe God divorcing Israel for her infidelity and yet still asking her to return to Him. He chose this metaphor to reflect the level of His desperate love for His people- that He would do what His own law declared to be abomination to Him. That same kind of love is what He has for us today. It is God's earnest desire to save repentant sinners. He will even bend His own laws to enable this. Consider how within His own law, it was an abomination for a man to re-marry the woman he had divorced. Yet this notwithstanding, God abases Himself in asking worthless Israel to re-marry Him (<em><a href='B:50 24:4'>Deu 24:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:300 3:1'>Jer 3:1</a></em>). Yahweh Himself had stated in His own law that to divorce a wife and then re-marry her after she had been “defiled” was an act of abomination to Him, and would defile the land. And yet in full knowledge of this, and with conscious allusion to it, Yahweh begs His defiled, divorced wife Israel to return to Him (<em><a href='B:300 4:1'>Jer 4:1</a></em>), even though the land was defiled by her (<em><a href='B:300 3:9'>Jer 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a></em>). Here we see the utter self-abnegation of Yahweh, God of Israel, that He might save His people. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a man takes a new wife he shall not go into the army, neither must he be assigned any business. He shall be free at home for one year and shall please his wife whom he has taken- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :2.&nbsp;Often the parables of the Lord Jesus warn that those who think He will understand their weakness, those who are too familiar with His softer side. The parable of the great supper records men explaining to Christ why they can't <em>immediately</em> respond to Him, although they want to when it's more convenient: "I have bought a piece of ground, <em>and must needs</em> go and see it... I have married a wife, therefore <em>I</em> cannot come" (<em><a href='B:490 14:18-20'>Luk 14:18-20</a></em>). The implication is that they assumed that the servant calling them to the wedding (i.e. Christ) would understand that their excuses were quite reasonable; the man who pleaded marriage as his excuse would have been alluding to the Law's provision to have time off from the Lord's duties on account of marriage (<em><a href='B:50 20:7'>Deu 20:7</a></em>). All these reasons were assumed to be quite reasonable, and the men sound as if they were confident that <em>of course</em> Christ would understand. But His demands are in fact higher than those made under the old covenant.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To say that marriage means that we can't respond so enthusiastically to the call of the Gospel is an irrelevant excuse, in the eyes of the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 14:26'>Luk 14:26</a></em>). Those who said it evidently thought that the Lord would understand and appreciate that&nbsp; their marriage was important, and so they couldn't respond as He was asking. But Christ didn't appreciate their way of thinking as they thought He would (<em><a href='B:490 14:20'>Luk 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 14:26'>Luk 14:26</a></em>). Christ was referring back to the way that under the Law, a man was legitimately excused from fighting the Lord's battles if he had recently married (<em><a href='B:50 24:5'>Deu 24:5</a></em>). The Lord is teaching that He realizes that His followers will be inclined to think that the OT attitude to marriage was His. 'But', He effectively continued, 'that isn't the case. I don't think that marriage is any excuse at all for not responding to me with all your soul. I'm asking you to take up my cross, to follow my example, to hate ('love less') wife and relations and houses etc. And that's that, I'm not ameliorating the standard I put before you' (although He later allowed Paul to do this). Quite clearly, the call of Christ is to give ourselves to Him at the expense of human relationships. Of course this doesn't mean that one can quit family life or take their responsibilities less seriously because they feel called to do the Lord's work; His work is to be found in family life, too. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No man may take the mill or the upper millstone as pledge, for he takes a life in pledge-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses does not repeat every single commandment in the Law. Rather are there several themes of Moses in Deuteronomy presented. His choice of which ones he does repeat indicates his feelings towards Israel. His sensitivity towards the weakest and poorest of Israel comes out in this. He was reaching the spirit of the Lord Jesus, who said that the weakest of his brethren represented him (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em> Gk.). Thus Moses stresses how they were not to go into the house of a poor man to take back his pledge (<em><a href='B:50 24:10'>Deu 24:10</a></em>); Moses could enter into the sense of shame and embarrassment of the poor man when a richer man enters his home. The Law in <em><a href='B:20 22:26'>Exo 22:26</a></em> did not stipulate that the house of the poor man should not be entered; by making this point in his farewell speech, Moses was showing his sensitivity, his ability now to enter into the feelings of the poorest of God's people. Indeed, the whole passage in Deuteronomy (24:6-17) about pledges is quite an expansion upon what the Law actually said in <em><a href='B:20 22:1-31'>Exo 22:1-31</a></em>. And this from a man who could have been the king of&nbsp; Egypt, who could have had the world.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man is found stealing any of his brothers of the children of Israel, and he deals with him as a slave or sells him, then that thief must die. So you shall put away the evil from among you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To deal with another person as a slave or chattel, to not treat a person as a person, was seen even under Mosaic Law as meriting the death penalty- for it was as if a person had been killed by treating them like that (<em><a href='B:50 24:7'>Deu 24:7</a></em> RVmg.). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take heed that in the plague of leprosy you observe diligently to do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you. As I commanded them, so you shall observe to do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul warned the new Israel that after his death ("after my departing", <em><a href='B:510 20:29'>Act 20:29</a></em>) there would be serious apostasy. This is the spirit of his very last words, in <em><a href='B:620 4:1-22'>2Ti 4:1-22</a></em>. it is exactly the spirit of Moses' farewell speech throughout the book of Deuteronomy, and throughout his final song (<em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>: "After my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves". Paul's "Take heed therefore unto yourselves" (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>) is quoted from many places in Deuteronomy (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:15'>Deu 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:23'>Deu 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Remember what Yahweh your God did to Miriam by the way as you came forth out of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference may be to how she was shut out of the camp for seven days. This would have been inconvenient in domestic terms, especially if the leprosy victim was a woman who was a mother and wife, expected to do all the domestic chores. Moses foresaw how tempting it would be for men to quietly ignore the need to put a leprous woman outside their camp for seven days. So we see how at the end of the wilderness journey, Moses was so sensitive to the likely weaknesses of his people; and he in this was a type of the Lord Jesus.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Like Paul in his time of dying, Moses in Deuteronomy saw the importance of obedience, the harder side of God; yet he also saw in real depth the surpassing love of God, and the grace that was to come, beyond Law. This appreciation reflected Moses' mature grasp of the Name / characteristics of God. He uses the name "Yahweh" in Deuteronomy over 530 times, often with some possessive adjective, e.g. "Yahweh thy God" (AV- i.e. you singular), or "Yahweh our God". He saw the personal relationship between a man and his God. Jacob reached a like realization at his peak. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you lend your neighbour any kind of loan, you must not go into his house to get his pledge-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses in Deuteronomy, the 'second law', does not repeat every single commandment in the Law. Rather are there several themes of Moses presented in Deuteronomy. His choice of which ones he does repeat indicates his feelings towards Israel. His sensitivity towards the weakest and poorest of Israel comes out in this, and is a sign of his maturity. He was reaching the spirit of the Lord Jesus, who said that the weakest of His brethren represented Him (<em><a href='B:470 25:40'>Mat 25:40</a></em>). Moses for all his wealthy background and high status amongst Israel could enter into the sense of shame and embarrassment of the poor man when a richer man enters his home. The Law in <em><a href='B:20 22:26'>Exo 22:26</a></em> did not stipulate that the house of the poor man should not be entered; by making this point in his farewell speech, Moses was showing his sensitivity, his ability now to enter into the feelings of the poorest of God's people. He typified in this the sensitivity of God’s son to our spiritual poverty. In some things we all have some advantage over others; some ‘wealth’ which they don’t have; for even the wealthiest person has some area of spiritual poverty in their lives. We are not to shame them, but to be sensitive to how they might feel if that poverty is exposed before us.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall stand outside and the man to whom you lent shall bring the pledge outside to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The poor are often ashamed when the more wealthy enter their homes and see their poverty. We see here the extreme sensitivity of God to the poor, and to human feelings. He who is apparently so far away, is in fact so near in understanding us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he is a poor man you must not sleep with his pledge- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Like many Mosaic laws, this was open to interpretation within the conscience of the lender. He had to judge whether the person was "poor" or not. Clearly these laws were often not intended as literalistic demands for a yes / no kind of obedience; but rather were a springboard towards a greater understanding of the human person, and finally to a culture of love, sensitivity and kindness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>you must surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goes down so that he may sleep in his garment and bless you, and it shall be righteousness to you before Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord’s high value of persons is reflected in how He taught His followers to not resist evil. A poor man had only two garments- an outer one, and an inner one (<em><a href='B:50 24:10-13'>Deu 24:10-13</a></em>). Underneath that, he was naked. Yet the Lord taught that if you had your outer garment unjustly taken from you, then offer your abuser your undercloth. Offer him, in all seriousness, to take it off you, and leave you standing next to him arrystarkus. This would have turned the table. The abuser would be the one left ashamed, as he surely wouldn’t do this. And thus the <em>dignity of the abused person was left intact at the end</em>. This was the Lord’s desire. Likewise, Roman soldiers were allowed to impress a Jew to carry their pack for a mile, but they were liable to punishment if they made him carry it two miles. To offer to carry it the second mile would almost always be turned down by the abusive soldier. And again, at the end of the exchange, he would be the one humiliated, and the Lord’s follower, even though abused, would remain with head up and dignity intact. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is of your brothers or of the foreigners who are in your land within your gates- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The oppression in view is things like not paying him his hire every day (<em><a href='B:50 24:14-15'>Deu 24:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:13'>Lev 19:13</a></em>). The ethnic background of the man was irrelevant; he was to be treated as a person and not in any way abused because of his weak economic position. "Oppress" is the same word translated "deceive"; to not oppress others through deceiving them would elicit the heaviest judgment from God, when the person realized the deception and cried to God because of it (<em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>). Deceiving / oppressing a neighbour was a sin against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:30 6:2'>Lev 6:2</a></em> s.w.), because He has a special interest in the poor. And His law reflects that.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Each day you must give him his hire. The sun must not go down on it for he is poor and sets his heart on it, lest he cry against you to Yahweh and it be sin to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is one of many examples of the utter inversion of values to be found in the sphere of God's dealings with men: The rich are to almost fear the landless poor labourer, in case he feels hard done by and prays to God against the rich. The power, in ultimate and spiritual terms, is with the poor- and the balance of power is against the wealthy. <em><a href='B:660 5:4'>Jas 5:4</a></em> specifically alludes to this command, and says that the cry of those we have been insensitive to will enter the ears of Yahweh of Hosts, a title typically associated with His active judgment. The cries of those we hurt are effectively a calling out to Yahweh of Hosts to enter into judgment with us. Whilst we may not have hired labourers, there are many ways in which we can make our less privileged brethren cry out in pain to God; particularly through refusing them fellowship at the Lord's table.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The fathers must not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It must be remembered that although in some ways <em>all</em> Israel were guilty for the sins of some of them (e.g. Daniel and Ezra describe themselves as guilty members of a guilty nation), this 'guilt by association' could not be 'escaped' by leaving Israel, the covenant people. And neither did God ever hold any individual Israelite personally guilty of the sin of another Israelite (<em><a href='B:50 24:16'>Deu 24:16</a></em> etc.). Ultimately, God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked (<em><a href='B:10 18:24'>Gen 18:24</a></em>), although the righteous in Israel sometimes suffered <em>the effect</em> of the nation's wickedness (cp. our suffering the <em>effect</em> of Adam's sin without being personally guilty of it). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, nor take a widow’s clothing in pledge- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God again reveals His especial interest in the foreigner, orphan and widow. This should be reflected in our perspectives too. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "justice" or "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them and reflect that justice to others. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but you must remember that you were a bondservant in Egypt and Yahweh your God redeemed you from there, therefore I command you to do this- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One of the most repeated themes of Moses in Deuteronomy is the way he keeps on telling them to "remember" all the great things which God had done for them on their wilderness journey, and especially the wonder of how He had redeemed them as children (his audience had been under twenty years old when they went through the Red Sea). Moses really wanted them to overcome the human tendency to forget the greatness of God as manifested earlier in our lives and spiritual experience. Our tendency as the new Israel is just the same- to forget the wonder of baptism, of how God reached out His arm to save us. The deliverance through the Red Sea is intended to be experienced by all God's people, and is now seen through His saving grace at baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). We need to "remember" how weak and vulnerable we were before we were brought out of Egypt / the world. The grace of our personal redemption is to never stop impressing us. And it will give rise to care for the vulnerable in practice as well as spiritually.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow, so that Yahweh your God may bless you in all the work of your hands-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A theme of Deuteronomy is the way in which Moses visualizes commonplace daily incidents which he could foresee occurring in Israel's daily life: the man cutting down the tree and the axe head flying off and hitting someone; finding a dead body in a lonely field; coming across a stray animal on the way home from work; a man with two wives treating one as his favourite; seeing your neighbour struggling to lift up his sick animal; coming across a bird's nest and being tempted to take the mature bird as well as the chicks home for supper; being tempted not to bother building a battlement around the flat roof of your&nbsp; new house; the temptation to take a bag with you and fill it up with your neighbour's grapes; the need to have weapons which could be used for covering excrement (<em><a href='B:50 19:5'>Deu 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:1'>Deu 21:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:15'>Deu 21:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:1-2'>Deu 22:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:4'>Deu 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:6'>Deu 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:8'>Deu 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:13'>Deu 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:5-6'>Deu 24:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:10'>Deu 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:11'>Deu 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:13'>Deu 25:13</a></em>). The sensitivity of Moses, his eager imagination of his people in daily life, his understanding of their everyday temptations... so superbly typifies that of our Lord.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em> doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow". By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. This would account for the hint in <em><a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a></em> that not every landowner allowed such gleaning in their fields. Likewise he extrapolates from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth. So we see that the law of Moses was not a chain, binding and tethering man to reluctant obedience; but rather was designed as a springboard towards a culture of grace, kindness and taking initiatives of grace in practice. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 24:20'>Deu 24:20</a></em><em> When you beat your olive tree do not go over the boughs again. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The essence of this was that they were not to seek maximum personal wealth. That of course is the exact opposite of the spirit of our age, and is absolutely counter instinctive. The power to overcome this basic instinct towards maximizing personal wealth can only come from an awareness of the grace we have received, and a subsequent conscience toward others because of that. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you harvest your vineyard do not glean it afterwards yourselves. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that the gleaning happened after harvesting had finished. We see how Boaz took the spirit of these gleaning laws far beyond their letter. He allowed gleaners to follow immediately behind the harvesters, and gave extra grain to Ruth. Again I feel the need to labour the point; that the law of Moses was not a chain, binding and tethering man to reluctant obedience; but rather was designed as a springboard towards a culture of grace, kindness and taking initiatives of grace in practice.&nbsp; ,<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall remember that you were a bondservant in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this thing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 25:38'>Lev 25:38</a></em> reasons that because of Israel's experience of the Red Sea redemption, therefore they were to have a generous spirit to their brother. Because the Egyptians were hard taskmasters, and Israel had been graciously saved from them, <em>therefore</em> they were not to be hard on each other (<em><a href='B:30 25:40'>Lev 25:40</a></em>). If the oppressed (as Israel were oppressed) cry out unto you (as Israel cried out for their affliction), you must hear them, otherwise God will hear them and punish you, as if you are the Egyptian taskmaster (<em><a href='B:20 22:24-27'>Exo 22:24-27</a></em>). Indeed, the whole Law of Moses is shot through with direct and indirect reference to the Red Sea experience. It was as if this was to be the motivator for their obedience and upholding of the culture of kindness which the Law sought to engender (<em><a href='B:30 23:1-44'>Lev 23:1-44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 24:1-23'>Lev 24:1-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:7'>Deu 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19-22'>Deu 24:19-22</a></em>). And our experience of redemption from this world ought to have the same effect. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If there is a controversy between men, and they come to judgment and the judges judge them, then they must justify the righteous and condemn the wicked-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This coming to judgment suggests the two men walk together to the place of judgment. This was clearly in the Lord's mind when He spoke of such a scenario, and urged that instead of allowing the case to come to the judges, by all means the spiritual person will make peace with his brother. The implication is that we should not assume that because we are innocent, therefore we will find justice. Rather should we seek to make peace with our brother, even if we think we are in the right.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the wicked man is worthy to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence according to his wickedness, by number- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"His presence" may refer to "the righteous" who took "the wicked" to court. Or it may refer to the judge. Even if someone is so seriously astray that they require discipline, remember that the judges of Israel had to have the person they judged worthy of stripes lay down before their presence (or that of the injured party) and be beaten in their presence. The principle being taught was that we should be fully aware of the pain and implications of the judgment we inflict upon others. Those who practice exclusion of others through closed communion need to see the tears they are causing, the ruptured marriages, the little children left without a daddy or mummy, the cancer, the stress, the tears every night for life... and unflinchingly look at all that and give a string of Bible verses which says that this is how believers in Christ should treat other believers in Christ. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Forty stripes he may give him. He must not exceed this number. If he should beat him with many more than forty stripes, then your brother may seem vile to you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There’s a tendency in us to be harsh in punishing others for their sin. This is psychologically explainable by our conscience for our own sins, and subconsciously realizing we deserve punishment; we then eagerly transfer this guilt and need for punishment onto others. Instead we are to confess our sins and believe that the final judgment for our sin was in Christ upon the cross; and if we believe this to the point of really feeling it, we will never punish anyone more than required, indeed we will be gracious to them as God has been to us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We should never be abusive, in any form, to or about anyone, even if it is sure that they will never know or feel our abuse. The Law also taught that a man must not be over punished, or else, if you did this, you considered him “light” (<em><a href='B:50 25:3'>Deu 25:3</a></em> Heb.). The weight of persons, the immense meaning attached to them, is not accepted by us if our judgment of them is too harsh or severe.&nbsp;Even a criminal was not to be overly punished, "lest your brother be degraded in <em>your</em> sight" (<em><a href='B:50 25:3'>Deu 25:3</a></em>)- he was still to be treated as a person, and nothing should be done to him which would make the punishers think too lowly of that person. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' sensitivity is shown by the introduction in Deuteronomy (the ‘second law’) of expansions upon existing commandments; e.g. "You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn". This is quoted by Paul as being actually part of the Law (<em><a href='B:530 9:9'>1Co 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:18'>1Ti 5:18</a></em>), showing that Moses was so attune with the mind of God that these practical extensions which his sensitivity led him to command Israel were indeed the inspired commandments of God.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:530 9:9'>1Co 9:9</a></em> Paul likens himself to a lowly ox treading out corn, and being allowed to eat a bit of it. The argument seems to be that this commandment was not given because God cares for oxen, but for the sake of teaching us a principle. But often Paul uses a grammatical device whereby he argues 'Not (so much) A, but B'. Such a device is common in several other languages. God is clearly not insensitive to animals, as so many cases in the Old Testament demonstrate. So surely we are to read this as meaning that this command about not muzzling the ox was not primarily for the sake of the oxen, but even more importantly for the sake of teaching us a lesson. The treading out of corn connects with the metaphor of judgment day in <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>, where we read that the "floor", literally 'the treading place' will be winnowed by the Lord Jesus in judgment. The fruit of Paul's labours for Corinth would be tested by the winnowing of what he had trodden out. He saw his work as preparing them for judgment, making them true grain, separating them from the husks. We note the immediate context here in <em><a href='B:50 15:1-3'>Deu 15:1-3</a></em> is of judgment.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command is also quoted about providing sustenance for church teachers (<em><a href='B:610 5:18'>1Ti 5:18</a></em>). The word for "muzzle" means literally to render speechless. The idea may be that if an elder was not paid, then they would not have time to prepare their talks for the congregation. The Old Testament contains examples of where the Levites failed to teach the people because the tithes for supporting them were not paid. The stress may be on the word "when" in "when he treads out the corn"; the elder must do this if he is to be fed. The treading out of the corn represents the labour in the word which is required before teaching it to the church congregation (see on <em><a href='B:610 5:17'>1Ti 5:17</a></em>). The corn represents God's word and the treading out the processing of it. And yet in this figure, the ox (cp. the elder) eats some of the corn he processes. This has been a theme of Paul in advising Timothy- that the very process of spiritually feeding others leads to the spiritual benefit of the feeder (see on <em><a href='B:610 4:6'>1Ti 4:6</a></em> <em>Nourished up</em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead should not be married outside to a stranger. Her husband’s brother should go in to her and take her to him as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This tacitly allowed polygamy. Here we have an example where one principle (the one man: one woman ideal of Eden) is in conflict with another (to build up the family name of your childless brother). God could have arranged ethics in a simpler manner; but He has allowed and in this case encouraged the development of such conflicts in order that we think and reason things through, and make whatever decision we do consciously and from our own desire rather than merely in mindless submission to a commandment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The firstborn whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, so that his name is not blotted out of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Not only does all this show a concession to human weakness and human inability to live up to the Biblical ideal of marriage; but it should be observed that seeing that most adult men in such societies were married, obeying this command probably involved polygamy. One principle was broken in order to keep another, more important one (in this case "that his name be not put out of Israel"). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the man doesn’t want to take his brother’s wife, then she shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, My husband’s brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Naomi apparently had only produced two sickly sons who survived to adulthood, and they had both prematurely died; and she felt herself to be barren. There was no legal requirement for a widow to marry the younger brother of a deceased husband, but it could be argued that any future children of Naomi had a duty to marry their late brother's wife and have children by her in his name. But that would be a very strict reading of the Mosaic legislation in this case, if not simply a wrong interpretation of the Levirate law. For the simple intention of the Levirate law was that if a man died, his brother was to marry his widow and have children by her. And it only applied to "brothers dwelling together". But Naomi has clearly thought it through; for all her apparent weakness and even apostacy as noted so far, she was aware of God's laws. Despite having nobody to teach her there in Moab and no written scripture with her (she was surely illiterate anyway), she remembered the Mosaic law and thought through its implications.&nbsp;However her very strict interpretation of them in this case may suggest she is seeking every reason to discourage the young women to follow her back to Israel. And this makes Ruth's decision the more commendable. But they were to be surprised by the grace of Boaz. For he had no obligation to marry Ruth, neither did the anonymous kinsman. Boaz understood this law as a springboard into a culture of far more extensive grace, rather than a chain which limits human behaviour, to be tolerated and obeyed with reluctance. &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:50 23:25'>Deu 23:25</a></em>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he stands and says, I don’t want to take her- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was nearly always from economic reasons. Most men were married and had children already, and to take another wife and have more children would have been crippling for many. The children would have to have an inheritance in their own names (:6), but that inheritance would have to come from this man who married the widow. So his own inheritance would be reduced, and also that of his existing children. This is why the anonymous relative of <em><a href='B:80 4:6'>Rth 4:6</a></em> didn't want to spoil his own inheritance. And yet he remains anonymous- his name was the name cut off from Israel, whereas the name of Boaz continued, and he became an ancestor of the Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Land at that time was organized according to strips of land within a field, rather than owning a field. Even wealthy Boaz only owned part of the field (<em><a href='B:80 2:3'>Rth 2:3</a></em>). Strip farming was very inefficient; upon death, land was split up between the children, and then when they died, the land was split up even further. The anonymous man didn’t want to have any more children because it would mean that what he was leaving as an inheritance would be even more reduced and divided. But because of that, he remains anonymous. He was concerned about what would happen over the next generation or so. By contrast, Boaz wasn’t worried about splitting up yet further the inheritance which he was leaving- and because of that, he left an inheritance which was recorded and stretched right down to the Lord Jesus.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems to me that the nameless relative in <em><a href='B:80 4:1-22'>Rth 4:1-22</a></em> was like so many people today. He was interested in getting a bit more land to add to his stack; but he didn't really care for the redemption of his brother, and pulled out of the whole thing once he learnt he would have to marry another wife and have more children. He said he couldn't do this because he would spoil (AV) or endanger (NIV) his inheritance. We know that at this time, strip farming was being practiced- whereby a field was split up into parts, each of which belonged to a different person (<em><a href='B:80 2:3'>Rth 2:3</a></em>). By having more children, the man would have to split up his land into yet more parts so that each son had his strips. And the son he had by Ruth would be counted as Mahlon's son, in the spirit of the levirate marriage laws. And so his bit of land would then be separate from the land strips the man was intending to give to his existing children. Ultimately this could lead to the man's total inheritance becoming almost worthless if it was just split into tiny strips because he had too many children. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I like how the NIV has the man speaking of 'endangering' his inheritance. He was like so many people- he had say a 20 year horizon, genuinely concerned about what was best for his children in the short term, rather than thinking about his responsibility to his brother. He saw 'danger' in doing that. It could be argued that the 50 year Jubilee law meant that the land boundaries returned to how they originally were after 50 years... so perhaps (although it's hard to work out how the Jubilee law worked in practice) he was worrying about something which only had meaning for the next few decades (if that). He wasn't a bad man; just one who was fearful and wouldn't look beyond the next 20 years or so. And I suggest the genealogy at the end of <em><a href='B:80 4:1-22'>Rth 4:1-22</a></em> comments upon this- that man is anonymous, his name never went down in history, whereas Boaz who loved his brother and didn't focus solely on his own immediate family went on to be the ancestor of both David and the Lord Jesus Himself. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders and loose his shoe from off his foot, spit in his face, and say, So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Such selfish thinking (see on :8) was worthy of the maximum level of contempt. God's whole work for us His people is about building up a house for His Name (s.w. <em><a href='B:100 7:5'>2Sa 7:5</a></em>). Building up others in faith, that might be a part of that house, is to be a focus which eclipses all temporary material advantage. It means we allow career and personal materialism to be subsumed beneath our passion to build up our brethren. This is where these ancient principles have constant contemporary relevance in the multitude of life decisions we face.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"As one occupied land by treading on it, the shoe became the symbol of taking possession (<em><a href='B:230 60:8'>Psa 60:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 108:9'>Psa 108:9</a></em>); when a man renounced property to another, he drew off and gave him his shoe. So among the ancient Germans the taking off of the shoe was a symbol for giving up property and heritable rights, and with the delivery of the shoe or the throwing of it away goods were conveyed to another". In this case the man was effectively losing a potential inheritance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>His name shall be called in Israel’, The house of him who had his shoe untied’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The person in view preferred temporal advantage materially rather than worrying about his long term name in Israel. This is true of so many today, and the anonymous relative of Ruth's remained anonymous in the historical record, whereas Boaz's name will be eternally remembered as an ancestor of the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When men strive together one with another- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This appears to connect with the situation in :5, where brothers lived together in peace. It seems these various laws are legal rulings given by Divine inspiration to Moses, from actual cases which arose during the wilderness journeyings. However, the striving together may e a reference to a legal struggle. See on :12.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand and takes him by the private parts-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The principle from this is that each person has a weakness, an exposed point in their lives or character, which we are aware of. We are not to use that to unfair advantage- because if we were touched in that way, we likewise could not endure. And God saves His weak people and has historically been angry with those who do such things (:18).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A theme of Deuteronomy is the way in which Moses visualizes commonplace daily incidents which he could foresee occurring in Israel's daily life: the man cutting down the tree and the axe head flying off and hitting someone; finding a dead body in a lonely field; coming across a stray animal on the way home from work; a man with two wives treating one as his favourite; seeing your neighbour struggling to lift up his sick animal; coming across a bird's nest and being tempted to take the mature bird as well as the chicks home for supper; being tempted not to bother building a battlement around the flat roof of your&nbsp; new house; the temptation to take a bag with you and fill it up with your neighbour's grapes; the need to have weapons which could be used for covering excrement (<em><a href='B:50 19:5'>Deu 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:1'>Deu 21:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:15'>Deu 21:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:1-2'>Deu 22:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:4'>Deu 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:6'>Deu 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 22:8'>Deu 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:13'>Deu 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:24-25'>Deu 23:24-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:5-6'>Deu 24:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:10'>Deu 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:15'>Deu 24:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:11'>Deu 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:13'>Deu 25:13</a></em>). The sensitivity of Moses was just fantastic! His eager imagination of His people in daily life, his understanding of their everyday temptations so superbly typifies that of our Lord!</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The striving together of :11 could refer to a legal struggle, which resulted in a striking or beating. The woman's attempt to stop this was therefore effectively her argument with God and His decreed justice; hence the punishment. There is also the teaching here that we should never exploit the obvious weakness of another; and a reminder that all men are very vulnerable and have weak points. See on :18.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not have in your bag different weights, a great and a small- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Deceitful traders still use balancing weights (Heb. "stones") of different weights, the lighter to sell with, the heavier to buy with. But the reference to the bag suggests that this command strikes at the forethought before the action. Don't go to market having prepared such weights in your bag. Any human legal code would focus just upon the act of using deceitful weights, whereas God foresees the planning and thought process behind the act of sin. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must not have in your house different measures, a great and a small- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To avoid temptation it’s best to not even possess things which we may be tempted to misuse. See on :13. The act of deceiving at the market was analyzed by God as beginning in the home, and it was there and to that thought that the Divine law struck. Even possessing such "different measures" was a temptation to misuse them, and we take the lesson that we are to remove sources of temptation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall have a perfect and just weight. You shall have a perfect and just measure, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The repeated promises recorded in Deuteronomy of prolonged days upon the land of Israel would therefore hint at the eternity of the Kingdom rather than this life. Obedience to the law could not give life of itself, but an Israel obedient to the covenant would have been given a Messiah who could have enabled this. And having integrity in apparently minor matters like just weights was one of the issues God looked at, for he who is faithful in the small things is faithful in all. Indeed, <em><a href='B:50 4:40'>Deu 4:40</a></em> says they would prolong their days "for ever". For an individual Israelite might be faithful but not prolong his or her days in the land because the whole people were to be carried away captive for their sins and the land given to a Gentile power. The opposite of 'days being prolonged' was 'utter destruction' (<em><a href='B:50 4:26'>Deu 4:26</a></em>)- which would then speak of condemnation in the second death. This is one of many examples of where eternal life was possible under the Old Covenant- there were multiple different possibilities and plans God could have worked by. Israel could have accepted the Lord Jesus as their Messiah and not killed Him, and so forth. It seems the closer we probe God's word, the more open He is revealed as being.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For all who do such things, all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'doing' in view is not deceiving customers in the marketplace but the forethought which preceded it- having unjust weights and measures in your bag when you set out to market, or even having them in your home. The Lord Jesus rightly interpreted this teaching as meaning that the thought is counted as the action, the doing. See on :13,14. These forethoughts, planning deceit in order to gain a petty amount of material advantage, were seen by Yahweh as "abomination", the word for idol worship. And such things are our temptation constantly.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth out of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In our world, human history is generally felt to be bunk, irrelevant to this generation, of merely passing cultural fascination to the hurrying man of modern society. And in some ways, that may indeed be a legitimate take on secular history. But Biblical history is to be seen quite otherwise by God's people. It is a living word spoken to us, and the salvation acts which are there recorded happened to us. We are to learn from history, not as a merely fascinating exercise. But the Bible is history, and yet it is a living word to us. Israel were supposed to reason back from the actions of Amalek towards them, and therefore not exploit the weakness of others in unjust weights, or by a woman exploiting the male weakness of her husband's enemy (:12).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>how he met you by the way and struck the hindmost of you, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary, and he didn’t fear God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This explained why the woman of :12 was to be punished for taking a man from behind by his sensitive, private parts. We note the analogy makes a man's reproductive organs his "feeble" part, when it was the boast of men in those times. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies all around in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky. Do not forget- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh's Name, by contrast, was to be an eternal memory (<em><a href='B:20 3:15'>Exo 3:15</a></em>). He was to be remembered for how He had articulated His Name in how He had historically acted in saving the patriarchs, and He would be remembered for how He was going to act to save His people from Egypt. What was to be memorialized was therefore His actions, rather than simply the letters YHWH. It was His wonderful works which were to be remembered (<em><a href='B:230 111:4'>Psa 111:4</a></em>, s.w. "My memorial"). By contrast, the sinful works and persons of the wicked would not be remembered / memorialized, be they Amalek (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 17:14'>Exo 17:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a></em>), or God's apostate people (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 32:26'>Deu 32:26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you come into the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and possess it and dwell in it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>take of the first of all the fruit of the ground which you bring in from your land that Yahweh your God gives you, and put it in a basket and go to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was therefore not impossible for God to accept non-blood sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 15:17-21'>Num 15:17-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:12-13'>Num 18:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:1-4'>Deu 26:1-4</a></em>). Cain, the epitome of 'the devil' (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>), was characterized by the attitude that he was not his brother's keeper (<em><a href='B:10 4:9'>Gen 4:9</a></em>). But the Lord Jesus perhaps offered a commentary on the incident when he said that our offering can only be accepted if we are first reconciled to our brother (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>). Cain's insistent lack of responsibility for his brother was the real sin, and therefore his sacrifice wasn't accepted by God. He wanted to serve God his own way, disregard his brother, justify his disagreement with him... to be a private person. But this was the basis of his rejection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall come to the priest who will be in those days and tell him, I declare this day to Yahweh your God that I have come to the land which Yahweh swore to our fathers to give us- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is both a collective and personal dimension to salvation. We are saved in the body of Christ, as Israel were saved in the body of Moses (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). But each individual was to respond to this by personally visiting the sanctuary and declaring that the promises to Abraham were to him personally. And had been fulfilled. There is no evidence Israel ever did this. Whilst church membership and attendance is all good, the problem with membership of a denomination can lead to this vital individual dimension of salvation being overlooked. When it is of the essence. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The priest shall take the basket out of your hand and set it down before the altar of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is as it were zoomed in upon the individual setting down the basket out of his hand. This was to be a highly significant act; and yet there is no record Israel ever did so.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Like Paul in his time of dying, Moses in Deuteronomy saw the importance of obedience, the harder side of God; yet he also saw in real depth the surpassing love of God, and the grace that was to come, beyond Law. This appreciation reflected Moses' mature grasp of the Name / characteristics of God. He uses the name "Yahweh" in Deuteronomy over 530 times, often with some possessive adjective, e.g. "Yahweh thy God" (AV- i.e. you singular), or "Yahweh our God". He saw the personal relationship between a man and his God. Jacob reached a like realization at his peak. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall answer and say before Yahweh your God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father and he went down into Egypt and lived there, few in number, and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is to <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>. Abraham's comment that God caused him to go astray from his father's house would likely have been understood by those who first heard it as a negative reference to God- for the word "gone astray" is used of a lost sheep (<em><a href='B:300 50:6'>Jer 50:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:4'>Eze 34:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 34:16'>Eze 34:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a></em>); and it was understood that "A bad shepherd causes a sheep to go astray from the flock because he is careless". Perhaps God recognized Abraham's failure by instructing His people to confess every year that "An Aramean gone astray was my father" (<em><a href='B:50 26:5'>Deu 26:5</a></em>). I take this to be a reference to Abraham more than Jacob; for it seems that the people of Aram migrated to Ur, and that Abraham having settled in Padan Aram, Abraham could also for that reason be called an Aramean. So Israel were asked to remember that their forefather Abraham had gone astray both literally and spiritually; and thus Abraham's God was a God of grace, and was thereby their God too.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were to recognize that their Arab brethren were in fact their cousins, and Abraham and Jacob their ancestors were at&nbsp; times no more than starving, desperate, homeless, wandering Arabs. That they had been given a fruitful land was therefore a great grace to them.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The closer we look at the Pentateuch, the more we see the huge emphasis placed by Moses upon deconstructing the wrong views about Satan and presenting Yahweh as omnipotent, and the ultimate source of both good and evil in the lives of His people. Thus in the prayer of the first fruits recorded in <em><a href='B:50 26:5-11'>Deu 26:5-11</a></em> we have the Hebrew verb "to give" repeated seven times. The first and last three usages of it refer to what God has 'given' to Israel; but the centerpiece reference is to Israel being <em>'given</em> hard bondage' in Egypt (<em><a href='B:50 26:6'>Deu 26:6</a></em>). Thus Yahweh is presented as the ultimate giver- of both good and evil. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Egyptians behaved badly with us, afflicted us and laid on us hard bondage-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, 'gave us hard bondage'. The closer we look at the Pentateuch, the more we see the huge emphasis placed by Moses upon deconstructing the wrong views about Satan and presenting Yahweh as omnipotent, and the ultimate source of both good and evil in the lives of His people. Thus in the prayer of the first fruits recorded in <em><a href='B:50 26:5-11'>Deu 26:5-11</a></em> we have the Hebrew verb "to give" repeated seven times. The first and last three usages of it refer to what God has 'given' to Israel; but the centerpiece reference is to Israel being <em>'given</em> hard bondage' in Egypt (<em><a href='B:50 26:6'>Deu 26:6</a></em>). Thus Yahweh is presented as the ultimate giver- of both good and evil. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and we cried to Yahweh, the God of our fathers and Yahweh heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil and our oppression- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The individual Israelite was to perceive his absolute connection with God's historical deliverance of His people from Egypt. And to be appropriately awed by all the grace shown in that. In our world, human history is generally felt to be bunk, irrelevant to this generation, of merely passing cultural fascination to the hurrying man of modern society. And in some ways, that may indeed be a legitimate take on secular history. But Biblical history is to be seen quite otherwise by God's people. It is a living word spoken to us, and the salvation acts which are there recorded happened to us. We are to learn from history, not as a merely fascinating exercise. But the Bible is history, and yet it is a living word to us. Israel were supposed to reason back from the actions of Egypt towards them, and their weakness spiritually at that time. And to respond personally to that grace. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Yahweh brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm and with great terror, with signs and wonders- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The might of Yahweh's hand was shown through His grace in as it were forcing Israel out of Egypt, when they actually wanted to remain there and He wished to destroy them (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). They were idolatrous and had told Moses to leave them alone and let them serve the Egyptians. Yahweh's strength therefore refers to the power of His grace in continuing His program with them.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was to stretch forth his hand to cause the waters of the Red Sea to part and return, not his rod; because he was manifesting the hand of Yahweh which was to deliver Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 7:5'>Exo 7:5</a></em>). The repeated references to the stretched our arm or hand of Yahweh to save His people invite us to recall this incident, and to perceive that Yahweh's hand had been manifest through the hand of Moses (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:2'>Deu 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:8'>Deu 26:8</a></em>). That stretched out, saving arm and hand of Yahweh was and is stretched out still, to save His people (<em><a href='B:110 8:42'>1Ki 8:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:15'>Dan 9:15</a></em> "as at this day") and bring about a new creation in human lives (<em><a href='B:290 45:12'>Isa 45:12</a></em>). For the deliverance through the Red Sea is intended to be experienced by all God's people, and is now seen through His saving grace at baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). What happened there was but the beginning of the work of God's outstretched arm (<em><a href='B:50 3:24'>Deu 3:24</a></em>). Yet the stretched out arm / hand of God is also a figure for His judgment (<em><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:12'>Isa 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:4'>Isa 10:4</a></em>). His hand is at work in our lives- either to our condemnation or our salvation. And it is for us therefore to humble ourselves beneath that mighty hand (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and He has brought us into this place and has given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that the Kingdom was in fact like that. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground which You, Yahweh, have given me. You shall set it down before Yahweh your God, and worship before Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we lament that there was no record of their ever doing this. It was a redemption which went largely unappreciated by them. As noted on :4, the language is zoomed in upon the individual setting down the produce out of the basket in his hand.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall rejoice in all the good which Yahweh your God has given to you and to your house; you and the Levite and the foreigner who is in the midst of you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So often, the Mosaic law associates rejoicing with giving, for truly it is more blessed or happy to give than to receive. The Lord's teaching about this was clearly reflective of this major Mosaic theme (<em><a href='B:510 20:35'>Act 20:35</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you have made an end of tithing all your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the foreigner, to the fatherless and to the widow, so that they may eat within your gates and be filled- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were given manna in the wilderness, and they ate it and were full (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:12'>Exo 16:12</a></em>). But they were promised that in the promised land of the Kingdom, they would likewise eat and be full, again from blessing given by God (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 8:10'>Deu 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:15'>Deu 11:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:12'>Deu 26:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:20'>Deu 31:20</a></em>). After our Red Sea baptism, we are now in the wilderness; but by feeding on the manna, the word of God in the Lord Jesus, we have a foretaste of the Kingdom experience. But the curse for disobedience was that they would eat and not be full / satisfied (<em><a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And when thou shalt have completed all the tithings of thy fruits in the third year, thou shalt give the second tenth to the Levite, and stranger, and fatherless, and widow; and they shall eat it in thy cities, and be merry". The stranger / foreigner may refer to those of the "mixed multitude" which were with them, or to those Canaanites who had accepted the message of Yahweh's Kingdom. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were three separate tithes commanded under the Law of Moses. Yet the tithing churches have simply said: ‘There’s something about tithing in the Old Testament. So, hey, give us 10% of your money!’. The first was the Levitical tithe of 10% on 100% of the produce for the first six years and was destined for the Levites and priests (see too <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>). The second tithe was the Festival tithe of 10% on the 90% remaining produce after the Levitical tithe. This tithe had to be eaten in the presence of the Lord and was collected on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th years only. The third tithe was the tithe of the poor to be collected on the 3rd and 6th years only (<em><a href='B:50 14:22-29'>Deu 14:22-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:12-15'>Deu 26:12-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 4:4-5'>Amo 4:4-5</a></em>). No tithe was collected on the 7th year or Sabbatical year. The farmers were to let the land rest in that year. The tithe consisted of fruit, grain, wine and later animals that are treated as produce from the land. It never consisted of money. Tithes were conducted annually and were based upon one’s produce increase for the year. This just isn’t talking about putting paper money or cheques on an offering plate each week as demanded by the tithing churches.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall say before Yahweh your God, I have put away the holy things out of my house and have given them to the Levite and to the foreigner, to the fatherless and to the widow, according to all Your commandment which You have commanded me. I have not transgressed any of Your commandments, neither have I forgotten them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So often the Mosaic law was designed to elicit introspection, and to convict of sin. For who could truly say "I have not transgressed any of Your commandments". These very words are placed by the Lord Jesus in the mouth of the hypocritical elder brother. and it is he who remains outside of the Father's fellowship, whereas the disobedient younger son is the one finally accepted. Likewise in the parable of the two sons, the one who says he will be totally obedient actually isn't. The whole structure of the law was to lead the spiritually minded Israelite to a conviction of sin, and a longing for a way to permanently resolve this. And that was to ultimately be in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I have not eaten of it in mourning, neither have I put away any of it while unclean, nor given any of it for the dead. I have listened to the voice of Yahweh my God. I have done according to all that You have commanded me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :13; these protestations of total obedience would have elicited a sense of sin and self examination in all spiritually minded people. GNB "I have not given any of it as an offering for the dead" suggests that there was in Israel the existence of false understandings of the death state. Yet still God loved His people and accepted them in covenant with Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "holy habitation" alludes to the most holy place, which is here presented as a figure of "heaven", just as <em><a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a></em>&nbsp; makes clear The temple and ark are sometimes referred to as the heavens (<em><a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 8:30'>1Ki 8:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 20:2'>Psa 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 20:6'>Psa 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a></em>). The church is the new temple, and is therefore at times referred to as the heavenlies in the New Testament. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the ground which You have given us, as You swore to our fathers, a land flowing with milk and honey-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The land was only potentially one flowing with milk and honey; it required God's blessing upon the ground. And that blessing was predicated upon Israel's obedience, as <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em> makes clear. And so it is with the promise of the Kingdom of God to us. It is not without any conditions, although the word of promise is absolutely certain. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This day Yahweh your God commands you to do these statutes and ordinances. You shall therefore keep and do them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because God saved them from Egypt by grace (cp. baptism- <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), with they themselves so spiritually weak at the time, still taking idols of Egypt through the Red Sea with them- <em>therefore</em> they were to keep the law (<em><a href='B:50 11:7-8'>Deu 11:7-8</a></em>). Because God gave them the land of Canaan, a land for which they did not labour, didn't do any 'work' to receive, but were given because "You did a favour unto them" (<em><a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a></em>)- <em>therefore </em>they were to keep the law (<em><a href='B:50 26:15-16'>Deu 26:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:8-9'>Deu 29:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:5-6'>Jos 23:5-6</a></em>). David said that he loved keeping the law <em>because</em> God's testimony to him was so miraculous (<em><a href='B:230 119:129'>Psa 119:129</a></em> Heb.). There is an awesomeness to God's grace in all this. Hence the paradox of <em><a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a></em>: "Fear not... that the fear of God may be before your faces". We are not to fear Him, for such perfect love casts out fear... yet it is exactly because of the wonder of all this that we live life in some fear / awe of misusing and abusing that grace. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With all your heart and with all your soul- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You have undertaken Yahweh this day to be your God and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments and His ordinances and listen to His voice- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :16. The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A covenant is a two way thing. This tie that binds applies to God too (:18); hence the wonderful, oft-repeated idea of His <em>chesed</em>, His covenant faithfulness to us His people. He likewise carries a kind of responsibility to us. The entry of Israel into covenant with God was a pattern of what we undertake at baptism. And afterwards there is a wonderful mutuality between God and man within that covenant.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Yahweh has undertaken to you this day that you shall be a people for His own possession, as He has promised you, in order that you should keep all His commandments-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are to live out in practice what we have been made in status by our gracious Father. The very fact He counts us as in Christ, as the spotless bride of His Son, must be both felt and lived up to by us. The way He counts us like this is a wonderful motivation to rise up to it all. Consider how God told Israel that <em>if</em> they kept His commandments, <em>then</em> they would be His “peculiar treasure” (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>). This conditional promise is then referred to by Moses as having been fulfilled- Israel became His “peculiar treasure” by status even though they did <em>not</em> keep His commandments (<em><a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a></em> s.w.; <em><a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a></em>). Moses concludes by saying that “the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people (s.w.)…<em> that</em> thou shouldest keep all his commandments” (<em><a href='B:50 26:18'>Deu 26:18</a></em>). See what’s happening here. God said that <em>if</em> they were obedient, <em>then</em> they would be His special people. Yet He counted them as His special people even though they were not obedient. And He did this so that they would be so touched by this grace that they <em>would</em> be obedient. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>so as to make you high above all nations that He has made, in praise, in name and in honour, and that you might be a holy people to Yahweh your God, as He has spoken-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The allusion is to the glory and beauty (s.w. "honour") of the priestly garments, which were all holy to Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 28:2'>Exo 28:2</a></em>). The idea is not that the clothes should be beautiful and glorious; they were "for" the manifestation of the glory and beauty of God's saving ways, once their significance was perceived. The naked flesh of man was to be covered over with a glory and beauty which was to come from God, looking forward to the idea of imputed righteousness which Paul explains in Romans. Glory and beauty were to be the features of all Israel in their role as priests / teachers of the Gentile world. Again we see repeated the ideal intention that all Israel were to be a nation of priests, and not just resign the work of witness to the priestly tribe.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the day when you pass over the Jordan to the land which Yahweh your God gives you, you must set up great stones and plaster them with plaster- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 27:2-8'>Deu 27:2-8</a></em> commanded that "in the day" Israel passed over Jordan, they were to set up plastered stones with the law written upon them (perhaps just the ten commandments), and put them "in mount Ebal". But when Joshua fulfilled it in <em><a href='B:60 8:30'>Jos 8:30</a></em>, this was not "in the day" that Israel passed over Jordan. They had indeed taken stones with them from the Jordan, but had not used them as intended. They didn't plaster them nor write the law upon them. And so perhaps God ammended His intention- which was initially that they would set those stones up in mount Ebal immediately. Instead, He sent the people against Jericho, and then against Ai. Perhaps an instant conquest of Jericho had been originally intended, so that they could proceed to mount Ebal immediately. For later in Joshua we will read of God giving His people unnaturally speedy progress against their enemies, all in the same day. Or maybe His intention was that firstly they ought to have gone to mount Ebal with the plastered stones, and only then attacked Jericho. But they didn't plaster the stones nor wish to proceed immediately to Ebal. And so He arranged the campaign against Jericho and then Ai. We see how God is so eager to accommodate His programs to the weakness of men.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and write on them all the words of this law, when you have passed over, that you may go in to the land which Yahweh your God gives you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as Yahweh, the God of your fathers has promised you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that the Kingdom was in fact like that. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When you have passed over the Jordan, I command you this day that you shall set up these stones, in Mount Ebal, and you shall plaster them with plaster-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word "commandments" occurs 43 times in Deuteronomy, and only 19 times in the other three records; "remember" occurs 16 times compared to 8 times in the other three. And yet Moses commanded Israel specifically to engrave the law on tables of plaster, not stone, knowing that they would soon be washed away; thus he wished to teach Israel (or try to) the temporary nature of the Law (<em><a href='B:50 27:4-8'>Deu 27:4-8</a></em>). Like Paul in his time of dying, Moses saw the importance of obedience, the harder side of God; yet he also saw in real depth the surpassing <em>love</em> of God, and the grace that was to come, beyond Law.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There you shall build an altar to Yahweh your God, an altar of stones. You shall lift up no iron on them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 20:25'>Exo 20:25</a></em> says that the use of any tool upon an altar would defile it (also see <em><a href='B:50 27:5'>Deu 27:5</a></em>). This is how strongly God despises chic externality, and wants us to offer to Him as we are, uncut stones. He wants us, as we are, and not covered by cosmetics. In this we see the deep unspirituality of the altars in the temple, as designed by David and Solomon. I have suggested that although Solomon claims all this was commanded by God, in fact that was merely His assumption. Solomon attempted to get around this law by ensuring that the stones were cut away from the temple construction site (<em><a href='B:110 6:7'>1Ki 6:7</a></em>). But this surely was breaking the spirit of the law. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall build the altar of Yahweh your God of uncut stones and you shall offer burnt offerings thereon to Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God wants us to serve Him in simplicity without trying to make our altars externally beautiful as if to impress a human eye. Israel had lived generations in Egypt, and had taken the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>). The Egyptian altars were all of hewed stones, with images of their gods engraved upon them. Perhaps the insistence that "cut stones" must not be used was in order to strengthen them against the temptation to engrave images upon the sides of the altar, as they had seen in Egypt. We see how God's laws are designed not as a burden, but to ease our overall obedience to His ways</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat there and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Eating upon a heap of unhewn stones was understood as a sign of having made a covenant on mutually agreed terms and being at peace with each other (<em><a href='B:10 31:46-47'>Gen 31:46-47</a></em>). Our eating before God at the breaking of bread meeting is something similar. Again we note how the Mosaic law associates rejoicing with giving, for truly it is more blessed or happy to give than to receive. The Lord's teaching about this was clearly reflective of this major Mosaic theme (<em><a href='B:510 20:35'>Act 20:35</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must write on the stones all the words of this law very plainly- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All the words" may be used as in <em><a href='B:20 15:22'>Exo 15:22</a></em>, and might refer just to <em><a href='B:50 26:16-19'>Deu 26:16-19</a></em>. "Plainly" is literally 'dug' or 'engraved'. As the old covenant was engraved upon stones, both on the tables of the covenant and here again, so Paul draws the contrast with how under the new covenant, God's law is engraved or dug in to our heart: "written... with the Spirit of the living God. Not in tablets of stone, but in tablets that are hearts of flesh" (<em><a href='B:540 3:3'>2Co 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:15'>Rom 2:15</a></em>). There is implied here a direct working of God upon the human heart, in order to dig in or engrave His law there, just as He will do to latter day Israel when they too enter the new covenant (<em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>). He instills His word and ways into the hearts or minds of His people. This is all part of blessing under the new covenant, the gift of the holy Spirit within our human spirit or mind. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and the priests and Levites spoke to all Israel, saying, Keep silence and listen, Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Keep silence" is AV "take heed". Paul warned the new Israel that after his death ("after my departing", <em><a href='B:510 20:29'>Act 20:29</a></em>) there would be serious apostasy. This is the spirit of his very last words, in <em><a href='B:620 4:1-22'>2Ti 4:1-22</a></em>. it is exactly the spirit of Moses' farewell speech throughout the book of Deuteronomy, and throughout his final song (<em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>: "After my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves". Paul's "Take heed therefore unto yourselves" (<em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em>) is quoted from many places in Deuteronomy (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:15'>Deu 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:23'>Deu 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This day you have become the people of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At this time, God saw no iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). He fulfilled His promise at Sinai that if they were obedient, He would make them His people; and He did, counting them as obedient. Yet the events of the intervening forty years hardly sound like Israel being obedient; He "suffered their manners" forty years (<em><a href='B:230 95:10'>Psa 95:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:18'>Act 13:18</a></em>). And yet at the end of that period, they were counted as having been sufficiently obedient to be made God’s people (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You must therefore obey the voice of Yahweh your God and do His commandments and His statutes which I command you this day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :9, they were to become God's people if they were obedient (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>). They had been disobedient, but still they were counted as His people (:9). But the response to such grace was that they should therefore be obedient- not in order to gain God's acceptance as His people, for He had already given them that, by grace. But instead their obedience was to be a sign of their gratitude for that grace. And so the commandments given them were a channel, an opportunity, through which to express gratitude for God's salvation by grace rather than legal obedience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded the people the same day saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The same day... this day" runs as a refrain throughout Deuteronomy. Although "I tell you this day" can be read as merely a way of making a solemn statement, verses like this ("the same day") suggest we would be justified in reading them literally. Thus Deuteronomy would be a transcript of Moses' final address to Israel on the last day of his life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people when you have passed over the Jordan: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph and Benjamin-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a></em> says that "All Israel, their elders and officers and their judges, stood on both sides of the ark before the priests the Levites who carried the ark of Yahweh’s covenant". So we can assume that the ark remained in the very narrow valley between the two mountains, with Israel as it were like the wings of the cherubim on both sides of it. Ezekiel's visions likewise use the cherubim to represent Israel. The departure and return of the cherubim spoke of Israel with their representative Angels leaving and then returning to the land and temple.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that generally the sons of Rachel and Leah said <em>"</em>Amen" to the blessings, whilst the cursed Reuben and the sons of the concubines said "Amen" to the curses (:13). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan and Naphtali- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Reuben had been the firstborn but had been demoted from that for sleeping with his father's wife, which was one of the curses (:20). This was a reminder to the people that their own honoured ancestors had done the very things they were now cursing (see on :18,22). They were a people who stood before God blessed by grace, rather than because of their obedience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Levites shall answer and tell all the men of Israel with a loud voice- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites were in the narrow valley in between the two mountains (see on :12). They would turn to Ebal and pronounce the curses, and the tribes standing there would shout "Amen". Just as they had turned to Gerazim and pronounced the blessings, and the tribes there had shouted "Amen". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is the man who makes an engraved or molten image, an abomination to Yahweh, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and secretly sets it up’. All the people shall answer and say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The list of sins which follow in :15-25 are all matters of the heart or things which are not seen by others. The people were confirming their acceptance of the fact that God sees and knows all things, and there really would be a judgment for them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who dishonours his father or his mother’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :15,23, the context here is of things done in the heart, or unperceived by others. This "dishonour" of parents may therefore refer to hidden mental attitudes and curses of parents, which (unrepented of) we will be held culpable for in the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who removes his neighbour’s landmark’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This again was likely to be done secretly, bit by bit grabbing small parcels of extra land from your neighbour. Why this was so abhorrent was because each family of Israel had a specific inheritance which was not to be sold or moved outside the family. Hence the sin of Ahab in obtaining Naboth's vineyard. It would seem that there was some unrecorded list made of each family and which land they were to be given. This looks forward to our very personal and unique inheritance in God's Kingdom, possibly based around spiritual family units. This was "The inheritance of fathers", "your possession" (<em><a href='B:30 25:27-28'>Lev 25:27-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 36:7-8'>Num 36:7-8</a></em>). God had given specific inheritances to His people, that this was not to be sold or traded. The division by lot in <em><a href='B:60 15:1'>Jos 15:1</a></em> presumably meant that the tribal areas were defined and then distributed by lot. And then within those areas, each family was given a specific inheritance. So to try to remove another's inheritance was tantamount to removing the inheritance of another in God's Kingdom. Anything which edges another out of their eternal inheritance is abhorrent to God. It is reflected in the Lord's condemnation of any who make their brother stumble from the path to the Kingdom.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who makes the blind wander out of the way’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was Aaron, their revered leader, who had made Israel wander "out of the way" through the golden calf apostacy (<em><a href='B:20 32:8'>Exo 32:8</a></em>). Likewise :22 is a clear reference to the wrong behaviour of Abraham. The people surely could not have repeated these words without thinking of Aaron. It was intended, therefore, as a reminder to them of how their very standing with God was by grace alone; and they were not from any wonderful spiritual pedigree, but instead were God's people by grace through faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who deprives the foreigner, fatherless and widow of justice’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is in the context of a list of things which were done in secret and would not be judged by men. So the lack of justice in view would mean having a biased, discriminatory attitude, deep within the heart, unseen by men. And this is so easy for us all to slip in to. When our own experience before baptism was like Israel's in Egypt. We were foreigners, the excluded and marginal, who were saved by grace. And this is to affect our mental attitudes to others like that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nakedness should only be uncovered before your wife or husband. Uncovering nakedness is an idiom for the sexual act. The allusion is to Adam and Eve having their nakedness uncovered; we have to accept the situation we are in as a result of the curse, rather than having sexual relations with who we like, as if uncovering nakedness is nothing shameful. Our hope is for the curse put on us in Eden to be lifted at Christ’s return; we can’t lift it in this life, as our own ever insistent mortality reminds us. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who lies with any kind of animal’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Such was God's desire to teach that we are made in His image, and must not act as animals, bringing ourselves down to their level as if we are equal only to them. So the message for us is that we are to respect ourselves as made in God's image, and not act on a purely animal level. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is phrased in such language as to allude to the way that Abraham says of Sarah his wife: "She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" (<em><a href='B:10 20:12'>Gen 20:12</a></em>). The people surely could not have repeated these words without thinking of their forefather Abraham, whose children they were, originating from a legally cursed relationship. It was intended, therefore, as a reminder to them of how their very standing with God was by grace alone; and they were not from any wonderful spiritual pedigree, but instead were God's people by grace through faith. See on :18.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication seems to be, 'And doesn't get caught doing so'. For this kind of inappropriate bonding would have been done in secret. So many of these curses are for sins committed which would never be found out by man, such as taking a bribe (:25). The idea of the curses therefore is that Israel were recognizing that who we are when nobody is watching is significant to God, because He does watch and judge, all the time. And He is therefore invited to "curse" our secret sins, at the last day. No other legal code was like this- criminalizing things which were unseen and would never be discovered by anyone else. Because God is the judge of all, and sees all things and will judge them in His own time. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who strikes his neighbour in secret’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may refer to a man striking his neighbour in his "secrets", i.e. his most vulnerable part, the testicles. In which case we deduce the principle that inappropriate exploitation of another's weakness is as it were a mortal sin. Or the idea may be that if you strike a person secretly with no witness, even though you will not be judged for it by men, you will be by God, and are pronounced "cursed". But the meaning may simply be "in secret". See on :23.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who takes a bribe to kill an innocent person’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of a bribe suggests that this doesn't refer to a contract killer, but to someone taking a bribe to make a false legal statement. But indirect consequence of wrong action is here understood as having performed the action, of murder in this case. For the death penalty would come because of the false statement which was made in return for a bribe. And this is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Cursed is he who doesn’t confirm the words of this law to do them’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When the people ratified their covenant with Yahweh (cp. the breaking of bread), they had to confirm their agreement that they would be cursed for disobedience to it; and “cursed is who doesn't confirm the words...". They couldn’t opt out of bringing this curse upon themselves for disobedience- if they did, they were cursed. Israel were told that <em>because</em> they were the people of God, in covenant with Him, <em>therefore</em> they <em>had</em> to be obedient. If they were disobedient, they would be cursed. And if they backed out of being God’s people, they were also cursed (<em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:19'>Deu 27:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:26'>Deu 27:26</a></em>). There was no way back: total devotion to obedience. God would either rejoice over them to bless them, or rejoice over them to curse them (<em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>). He isn’t passive; His energy will be expended upon us one way or the other. There are only two types of builder, the wise and the foolish; two types of tree, yielding either good or bad fruit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you will listen diligently to the voice of Yahweh your God, to observe all His commandments which I command you this day, Yahweh your God will set you on high above all the nations of the earth-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The earth" specifically and initially refers to the territory promised to Abraham; see on :10. The long list of blessings in <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em> were given by God perhaps knowing at the start that they would never be realized- "It shall come to pass, if you shall hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 28:1'>Deu 28:1</a></em>). God gave such detailed blessings for obedience even though they would never be realized by Israel. Likewise He gave such detailed plans for the temple in <em><a href='B:330 40:1-49'>Eze 40:1-49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 41:1-26'>Eze 41:1-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 42:1-20'>Eze 42:1-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 43:1-27'>Eze 43:1-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:1-31'>Eze 44:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 45:1-25'>Eze 45:1-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 46:1-24'>Eze 46:1-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 47:1-23'>Eze 47:1-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 48:1-35'>Eze 48:1-35</a></em> - even though the envisaged, possible scenario never came about because Israel chose to be disobedient.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All these blessings shall come on you and be with you, if you will listen to the voice of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Like Paul in his time of dying, Moses in Deuteronomy saw the importance of obedience, the harder side of God; yet he also saw in real depth the surpassing love of God, and the grace that was to come, beyond Law. This appreciation reflected Moses' mature grasp of the Name / characteristics of God. He uses the name "Yahweh" in Deuteronomy over 530 times, often with some possessive adjective, e.g. "Yahweh thy God" (AV- i.e. you singular), or "Yahweh our God". He saw the personal relationship between a man and his God. Jacob reached a like realization at his peak. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be blessed in the city and you shall be blessed in the field-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>The love of God for Israel isn’t just something in the past. You may have noticed how the blessings for Israel’s obedience are actually in a strange way somehow still given to them even in their disobedience. The blessings of many children and general prosperity have somehow been fulfilled to the Jewish people; they have somehow prospered “in all that thou settest thine hand unto…and all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord… and the Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods…and thou shalt lend unto many nations…thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath” (<em><a href='B:50 28:3-13'>Deu 28:3-13</a></em>). This has all come true for the Jewish people in their unbelief, from the Jewish taxi driver in Vilnius who somehow makes more than the other guys, to the Jewish bankers of New York- and all achieved despite every man’s hand against them. Here we see the grace and love of God for Israel. And thus finally He shall give them the valley of Achor, symbol of their shameful disobedience, for a door of hope. The ineffable love of God for Israel continues. And we, as God’s children, should show forth that same love, expressed supremely in seeking to turn them to Messiah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be blessed in the fruit of your body, the fruit of your ground, the fruit of your animals, the increase of your livestock and the young of your flock-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>The curses of <em><a href='B:50 28:4'>Deu 28:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:18'>Deu 28:18</a></em> involved cursing coming upon descendants of sinful people; perhaps in that their fathers influenced them to do wrong. Thus the salvation of men can be affected by a third party not preaching to them or not teaching them correct doctrine. Herein lies the crying need to ‘defend the Faith’. Speaking of how he had suffered to defend purity of understanding of the Gospel, Paul reflected: “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ” (<em><a href='B:620 2:10'>2Ti 2:10</a></em>). <em>Their</em> salvation was dependent upon <em>his</em> enduring. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your basket and your kneading trough shall be blessed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "Blessed shall be thy barns, and thy stores" certainly seems to be in the Lord's mind in His parable of the man who had to build larger barns. He so often alludes to Mosaic commandments and statements and places a very different spin upon them. In this case, His point was that one may receive blessing in this life, which might look like blessing for obedience to the covenant- when in fact, it was a result of your own hard work, and you are not in fact with the Father at all, and will die condemned by Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be blessed when you come in and you shall be blessed when you go out- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Within the Pentateuch, the idea of blessing creation paves the way for God promising to “bless” the children of Abraham, and the blessings upon them with which Deuteronomy concludes (see too <em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:22-24'>Num 6:22-24</a></em>). The pagan creation stories sometimes spoke of the things created by the gods then blessing <em>them</em>. The Sumerians recorded that at ‘creation’, “The whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue gave praise”. But the true God, the God of all grace, not only creates His people and other creatures, but then blesses <em>them</em>! And the spirit of that grace should be seen in all our relationships. The Sumerian and Babylonian myths speak of people being created in order to serve the gods, “to bear the yoke of the gods” (S.G.F.Brandon), to relieve them in their everyday work. But the Genesis creation has God creating man and giving him great freedom, and blessing him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will cause your enemies who rise up against you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "thine enemies that withstand thee", another hint that the bloody conquest of Canaan was only bloody because the nations withstood Yahweh's people, rather than like Rahab and the Gibeonites, seeking covenant relationship with Him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To be struck before you. They will come out against you one way and will flee before you seven ways- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fleeing of the Egyptians from Israel in the midst of the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:25'>Exo 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>) was to be repeated in all Israel's conflicts with their enemies; every time, the essence of the Red Sea deliverance (which was by grace alone, as Israel then were so weak spiritually) was to be repeated throughout the history of God's people (<em><a href='B:40 10:35'>Num 10:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:7'>Deu 28:7</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will command the blessing on you in your barns and in all that you put your hand to; He will bless you in the land which Yahweh your God gives you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :5. The blessing of Yahweh would come if His commands were obeyed (<em><a href='B:50 11:27'>Deu 11:27</a></em>); but in response, He would command that blessing (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 28:8'>Deu 28:8</a></em>). His commandments were therefore effectively a commandment of blessing. They were designed for Israel's good and blessing, and not as a test of mindless obedience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will establish you for a holy people to Himself as He has sworn to you, if you will keep the commandments of Yahweh your God and walk in His ways-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses urges the peoples' faithfulness so that Yahweh might "establish His covenant" with them (<em><a href='B:50 8:18'>Deu 8:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:9'>Deu 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:13'>Deu 29:13</a></em>); and yet we note that despite their disobedience, He still "established" the covenant with them, by grace alone (<em><a href='B:50 9:5'>Deu 9:5</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the peoples of the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference of the “land” is to the <em>eretz </em>promised to Abraham. God would set Israel on high above all nations of the land (28:1). Only those round about Israel would see this, not the whole planet. “The nations” therefore refer to those in the land. In this same context they are warned that if they are <em>not</em> obedient, then they would be taken into all kingdoms of the earth (v. 25). And this is what happened- they were taken into captivity in Babylon, Assyria and their empires within the ‘earth’ / land. They were invaded by a nation from the end of the earth (28:49), which Habakkuk defines as Babylon, a nation at the extremity of the land / earth promised to Abraham. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Will see that you are called by the name of Yahweh and they will be afraid of you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whatever carried the name of a person was seen as his property. If a city was conquered, it bore the name of the conqueror (<em><a href='B:100 12:28'>2Sa 12:28</a></em>); the names of owners were on their property (<em><a href='B:230 49:12'>Psa 49:12</a></em>). So to bear God's Name is to recognize His complete ownership and even conquest of us. And yet there's a significant twist to all this in <em><a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a></em>: "I have called you by <em>your</em> name, because you are mine". It seems like a slip- we expect God to say that He has called us by <em>His </em>Name, because we are His. But no- He wishes us to bear both His Name and our own name, He doesn't wish to subsume us beneath His ownership and manifestation to the point that we are not significant as persons.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Proclaim the Name" (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>) is the same phrase used about 'calling upon the Name' (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>). The calling out / proclamation of Yahweh's Name, in the Gospel and ultimately in the declaration of the Name on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), elicits a desire to call that Name upon us, which we initially do through baptism into that Name. And like Moses, we in turn proclaim the Name to others (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> s.w.).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will make you prosperous in the fruit of your body and in the fruit of your livestock and in the fruit of your ground, in the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers to give you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The blessings of <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em> were conditional upon obedience. Israel were not obedient, from Sinai onwards, as the prophets lament. But many of those blessings were still experienced by Israel. So we conclude that this was by grace alone, and indeed the idea of Abraham's seed being "blessed" is associated in the New Testament with the blessing of grace. Again we note God's passionate desire to by all means give His people His Kingdom. He wants to do this, it is the good pleasure or will of God to give us the Kingdom. He is not indifferent to our salvation, and wants us desperately to be in His Kingdom, as the parable of the marriage supper also indicates. It concludes with pretty much anyone willing to say "yes" being ushered in to the marriage supper.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will open to you His good treasure in the sky, to give the rain of your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations and you shall not borrow- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Money lending worldwide has been a feature of Jewish existence over the centuries, and yet this is here predicted as happening only if they were obedient. They have been disobedient, and yet it’s as if God loves to advertise His grace to the world by still blessing the disobedient.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But I suggest that the context is simply that "The Lord shall open unto you <em>His</em> good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of your land... and <em>you</em> shall lend unto many nations". If God opens His treasure to us, we should open our treasures to others, even lending with a spirit of generosity, motivated by our experience of His generosity to <em>us</em>. Because Yahweh had redeemed Israel, they were not to be petty materialists, cheating others out of a few grams or centimeters in trading. The wealth and largeness of God’s work for them should lead them to shun such petty desire for self-betterment. God gives to all men with a single eye (<em><a href='B:660 1:5'>Jas 1:5</a></em> Gk.); and in response, we too must be single eyed in our giving (<em><a href='B:470 6:22'>Mat 6:22</a></em> s.w.- this is one of James; many allusions to the sermon on the mount). The Jews' experience of redemption from Haman <em>quite naturally</em> resulted in them giving gifts both to each other and to the poor around them (<em><a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Having stated that the Canaanite tribes would only be cast out if Israel were obedient, Moses goes on to enthuse that those tribes would indeed be cast out- so positive was he about Israel’s obedience (<em><a href='B:50 6:18-19'>Deu 6:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>). And yet on the other hand he realistically was aware of their future failures. He said those positive words genuinely, because he simply loved Israel, and had the hope for them which love carries with it. Throughout his speech, Moses is constantly thinking of Israel in the land; he keeps on telling them how to behave when they are there, encouraging them to be strong so that they will go into the land. I estimate that about 25% of the verses in Moses' speech speak about this. Israel's future inheritance of the Kingdom absolutely filled Moses' mind as he faced up to his own death. And remember that his speech was the outpouring of 40 years meditation. Their salvation, them in the Kingdom, totally filled his heart. And likewise with the Lord Jesus. <em><a href='B:230 22:1-31'>Psa 22:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:1-36'>Psa 69:1-36</a></em> shows how his thoughts on the cross, especially as he approached the point of death, were centred around our salvation. And Moses was so positive about them. “The Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands”, even though these blessings were conditional upon their obedience. Moses was this confident of them (<em><a href='B:50 16:15'>Deu 16:15</a></em> cp. 28:1,4,12). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will make you the head and not the tail, and you shall only be above and you shall not be beneath, if you will listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you this day, to observe and to do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and do not turn aside- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<em><a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a></em>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand or to the left- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The wall of water on their right hand and left when they crossed the Red Sea is twice emphasized (<em><a href='B:20 14:22'>Exo 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:29'>Exo 14:29</a></em>). It is alluded to later, when they are urged to not depart from God's way, not to the right hand nor left (<em><a href='B:50 5:32'>Deu 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:20'>Deu 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a></em>). We passed through the Red Sea when we were baptized (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). We were set upon a path which is walled up to keep us within it. And we are to remain in that path upon which we were set. To turn aside from it would be as foolish as Israel turning away from their path and trying to walk into the walls of water.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To go after other gods to serve them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Go after" is a phrase Moses frequently uses in his last speech in Deuteronomy, but not elsewhere. It means literally to follow or walk after. He warns against going after other gods (<em><a href='B:50 4:3'>Deu 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:14'>Deu 6:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:19'>Deu 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:28'>Deu 11:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:2'>Deu 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a></em>), and urges following / walking behind / going after Yahweh alone (<em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>). I suggest he was reflecting upon how by following after Yahweh in the Angel, the people had been brought out of Egypt, through the wilderness and to the promised kingdom. Caleb had faithfully followed / walked after Yahweh, and so entered the land. The phrase is used of the people following after the ark to enter Canaan (<em><a href='B:60 3:3'>Jos 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:9'>Jos 6:9</a></em>). Following after idols led them just to pointless wandering in circles. And so it is in human life today. Following idols leads to pointless wandering, whereas following Yahweh has a specific destination in view- possession of the Kingdom. Elijah uses the phrase when telling Israel they could either follow after Baal, or Yahweh; and if Yahweh is God, then we are to follow Him (<em><a href='B:110 18:21'>1Ki 18:21</a></em>). We cannot follow two directions. But Israel followed after (s.w.) vanity and thereby became vain (<em><a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a></em>). They carried the tabernacle of Moloch and also of Yahweh, throughout the wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:510 7:1-60'>Act 7:1-60</a></em>:). Following after Baal is paralleled with following / walking after the imagination of their own evil heart (s.w. <em><a href='B:300 3:17'>Jer 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 9:14'>Jer 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:10'>Jer 13:10</a></em>), walking after their own spirit rather than God's (<em><a href='B:330 13:3'>Eze 13:3</a></em> s.w.) and their own covetousness (s.w. <em><a href='B:330 33:31'>Eze 33:31</a></em>). To walk / live just according to the word of our own imaginations is our great temptation. But we are to instead follow God's imaginations and heart, as revealed in His word (<em><a href='B:330 20:16'>Eze 20:16</a></em> s.w.). This is where our acceptance of the word of God as indeed His word... has endless implications. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if you will not listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command you this day, all these curses shall come on you and consume you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<em><a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a></em> s.w.). <em><a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a></em> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<em><a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a></em>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn't hearken to God's voice (<em><a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a></em>) and God didn't hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<em><a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a></em>). If God's word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<em><a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be cursed in the city and you shall be cursed in the field-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A faithless and disobedient Israel were apparently blessed and not cursed in the city and in the field since their reestablishment of Israel in 1948. But this is therefore of itself a sign of God's absolute grace to them, given no doubt in the hope that it would lead them to repentance concerning the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your basket and your kneading trough shall be cursed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The material prosperity of Israel, particularly the fertility of the land, was to be cursed if they disobeyed God (<em><a href='B:50 28:16-18'>Deu 28:16-18</a></em>).&nbsp;If this has a latter-day application, it follows that Israel must first have returned to their land in the last days and become agriculturally prosperous before it can happen.&nbsp;This is exactly the position today.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The fruit of your body, the fruit of your ground, the increase of your livestock and the young of your flock shall be cursed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX specifically mentions oxen for "livestock" and sheep for "flock". <em><a href='B:420 3:17'>Hab 3:17</a></em> seems to allude to this picture, but the faithful writer rejoices that despite the experience of the curses for disobedience on a national level, he can personally look forward to a relationship with God. So even at the height of the curses, there was always the possibility for individuals to have a relationship with God, even if they shared the effect of others' sins.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall be cursed when you come in and you shall be cursed when you go out- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is a most interesting connection between the curses for disobedience and the time of the judges in the words of Azariah to Asa.&nbsp;He reminded Asa of the problems of weak leadership in that period, and encouraged Asa to learn the lesson from it, as a ruler of Israel.&nbsp;He describes Israel at that time as being "for a long season... without the true God, and without a teaching priest (cp. <em><a href='B:90 3:1'>1Sa 3:1</a></em>, Hebrew), and without law" (<em><a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a></em>). This is quoted in <em><a href='B:350 3:4-5'>Hos 3:4-5</a></em> concerning Israel's state before their final repentance.&nbsp;Azariah continued:&nbsp;"In those times there was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in (an idiom for the rulers), but great vexations were upon all the inhabitants" (<em><a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a></em>). This is definitely alluding to <em><a href='B:50 28:19-20'>Deu 28:19-20</a></em>: "Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in... and goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee... vexation" (same word in <em><a href='B:140 15:5'>2Ch 15:5</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;"Nation was destroyed of nation" (<em><a href='B:140 15:6'>2Ch 15:6</a></em>) must be alluded to in <em><a href='B:490 21:10'>Luk 21:10</a></em> concerning the situation in latter-day Israel. And <em><a href='B:140 15:7'>2Ch 15:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em> - a certain latter-day application.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will send on you cursing, confusion and rebuke in all that you put your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The connections between the record of Job's experience of depression and those curses upon Israel gives us a cameo of latter-day Jewry's position. This 'confusion of mind' (<em><a href='B:50 28:20'>Deu 28:20</a></em>, Hebrew), "madness... and astonishment of heart" (<em><a href='B:50 28:28'>Deu 28:28</a></em>) will, not surprisingly, result in a complete collapse of leadership within Israel (<em><a href='B:50 28:19'>Deu 28:19</a></em>), resulting in them fleeing a disorganized seven ways before their enemies (<em><a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a></em>). There is a sharp contrast between this and Israel's present nonchalance. During their latter day tribulation, Israel will experience "faintness in their hearts", intense "terror" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>), which would be enough to kill them (<em><a href='B:50 32:25'>Deu 32:25</a></em>).&nbsp;This extraordinary level of paranoia will be modelled upon that of Jacob as he faced Esau - representing Israel's confrontation with their neighbours and brethren in the last days (<em><a href='B:300 30:5'>Jer 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>). This state of fear will result in many Jews going to live in Jerusalem, as happened during the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions (<em><a href='B:300 35:11'>Jer 35:11</a></em>).&nbsp;Ezekiel had prophesied of this time:&nbsp;"Terrors (an intensive plural - i.e. 'the one great terror') by reason of the sword shall be upon my people" (<em><a href='B:330 21:12'>Eze 21:12</a></em>).&nbsp;Likewise our Lord spoke of "fearful sights" being seen in latter-day Israel (<em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em>). This fear will be absolute paranoia:&nbsp; "I will make you a terror to yourself" (<em><a href='B:300 20:4'>Jer 20:4</a></em>) because of latter day Babylon's invasion;&nbsp;"ye shall flee when none pursueth you... I will send a faintness into their hearts... the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them" (<em><a href='B:30 26:17'>Lev 26:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a></em>). "I will bring the land into <em>desolation</em>" (<em><a href='B:30 26:32'>Lev 26:32</a></em>) uses a Hebrew word which can imply stupefaction by fear.&nbsp;This paranoia will be associated with a manic depression which will have its roots in a chronically bad conscience towards God, going back thousands of years to their national childhood:&nbsp;"I will... cause sorrow of heart... they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity... and also in the iniquity of their fathers shall they pine away" (<em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:39'>Lev 26:39</a></em>). Note how the <em>land</em> will be brought into this mental desolation. Frequently the land of Israel is paralleled with the people (e.g. <em><a href='B:300 19:14'>Jer 19:14</a></em> cp. 26:17). The intense desolation of Jewry will be reflected physically in the state of their land. And the resolution of this psychological torment will only be through repentance and acceptance of the Saviour Messiah whom they crucified.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because of the evil of your doings by which you have forsaken Him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:70 2:13'>Jdg 2:13</a></em> says that the people did forsake Yahweh. But instead of these judgments , we are to read that although God punished them, He raised up saviours to save them from the judgments; and this looks forward to His grace in the Lord Jesus, 'Yah's salvation'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will make the pestilence cleave to you until He has consumed you from off the land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "pestilence" which was the plague upon Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 9:3'>Exo 9:3</a></em>) was to come upon a hard hearted Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:30 26:25'>Lev 26:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:12'>Num 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:6'>Jer 21:6</a></em>). The plagues upon Egypt form the basis for the vials and seals of Revelation, which speak of judgment to come upon the land of Israel. It is a theme with God that His apostate people are "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). If their hearts are really with Egypt / the world, then they will share the judgments of this world. The time for separation is now, just as the Egyptians had to identify with Israel if they wished to escape the plagues.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Into which you now go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will strike you with consumption, with fever, with inflammation and with fiery heat; with the sword, with blight and with mildew, and they shall pursue you until you perish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The curses to come upon Israel as a result of the latter day invasions are described in terms which are extremely apposite to modern warfare. The plagues to come upon Israel as a result of the invasions are almost impossible to identify with anything presently known:&nbsp;"a consumption... a fever... an inflammation... an extreme burning... blasting... the burning ague that shall consume the eyes" (<em><a href='B:50 28:22'>Deu 28:22</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a></em>) all seems to echo the language of nuclear fall-out.&nbsp;"They shall be burnt... and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction" (<em><a href='B:50 32:24'>Deu 32:24</a></em>) is similar. The release of complex chemical weapons, as well as nuclear detonation, would explain why rainfall patterns will be interrupted during this latter day tribulation (<em><a href='B:50 28:23'>Deu 28:23</a></em>).&nbsp;The fall-out from such weapons would create the murderous rain of dust upon the land which <em><a href='B:50 28:24'>Deu 28:24</a></em> speaks of:&nbsp;"The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed".&nbsp;It is twice emphasized that those in the land would suffer blindness (<em><a href='B:50 28:28-29'>Deu 28:28-29</a></em>), which may also be related to such nuclear or chemical fallout. This has not yet happened;&nbsp; the context invites us to read this as literal rather than figurative.&nbsp;We know that the latter day invaders who attack Jerusalem will both fight each other and have their eyes rot in their sockets (<em><a href='B:450 14:12'>Zec 14:12</a></em>), the implication being that they use their weaponry against each other as well as against Israel.&nbsp;Their earlier use of these weapons would account for this blindness coming upon Israel, and again we see the principle that what the attackers do to Israel will be inflicted upon them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your sky that is over your head shall be brass and the earth that is under you shall be iron- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may well be the result of latter day chemical or nuclear weapons; see on :22.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from the sky shall it come down on you until you are destroyed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This has not yet been fulfilled; maybe because God in His grace has not punished His people according to all their sins. Or it could be that it has yet to be fulfilled in the final tribulation to come upon Israel. Nuclear fallout would fulfil these words- and likewise those of <em><a href='B:290 29:6'>Isa 29:6</a></em>, describing the invasion of latter day Babylon / Assyria, which have yet to be accurately fulfilled. See on :22.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em> and <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em> promised a curse to come upon the land (of Eden / Israel) for their failure within it, just as happened to Adam and Eve; and of course ultimately they were driven out of the land just as Israel's very first parents had been. As the <em>eretz</em> / earth / land was initially "without form and void", so the same term is used of the land of Israel after the people had been driven out of it (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>). As thorns and thistles came up in the land (and those plants are unknown in some parts of the planet), so they did again when Israel were driven from their land (<em><a href='B:10 3:18'>Gen 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:8'>Hos 10:8</a></em>). As Adam was punished by returning to dust, so Israel would be destroyed by dust (<em><a href='B:50 28:24'>Deu 28:24</a></em>). As Adam and Eve failed to "subdue" the garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>), so Israel failed to fully "subdue" (s.w.) the tribes of the land (<em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>). They subdued a few local to them; but they never really rose up to the reality of being able to have the whole land area promised to Abraham subjected to them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will cause you to be struck before your enemies. You shall go out one way against them but shall flee seven ways before them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fleeing of the Egyptians from Israel in the midst of the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:25'>Exo 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>) was a case of fleeing when none pursued them. This was the judgment upon Israel (<em><a href='B:30 26:17'>Lev 26:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a></em>), which was to arise because in their hearts they had returned to Egypt (the world) and were therefore to be judged as Egypt, "condemned with the world" they had loved (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you shall be tossed back and forth among all the kingdoms of the earth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is of a sieve, which was tossed back and forth until the grain was left and all the lighter chaff had fallen to the earth. The idea is that Israel's wandering amongst the nations, and especially their latter day scattering and wandering amongst the kingdoms of the earth / land promised to Abraham, would result in the appearance of a faithful seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your dead body shall be food to all birds of the sky and to the animals of the earth, and there shall be none to frighten them away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The events of AD70 were a detailed initial fulfilment of some parts of these prophecies. But they were only a foretaste of the tragedies of Israel’s latter day cursing. Our Lord's quotation of <em><a href='B:50 28:26'>Deu 28:26</a></em> in <em><a href='B:470 24:28'>Mat 24:28</a></em> ("your carcasses shall be meat unto the fowls of the air") is confirmation of this. "None to frighten them away" recalls the events of the covenant with Abraham in <em><a href='B:10 15:1-21'>Gen 15:1-21</a></em>. The end result of all this will be Israel returning to that covenant, accepting the new covenant which is based upon the promises to Abraham.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These "beasts of the earth / land" (<em><a href='B:50 28:26'>Deu 28:26</a></em>) must refer to the nations within the earth / land promised to Abraham.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will strike you with the boil of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Apostate Israel were to be punished with the judgments of Egypt, and this was the plague on Egypt of <em><a href='B:20 9:9'>Exo 9:9</a></em>. It is a theme with God that His apostate people are "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). If their hearts are really with Egypt / the world, then they will share the judgments of this world. The time for separation is now, just as the Egyptians had to identify with Israel if they wished to escape the plagues.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And with the tumours, the scurvy and the itch, from which you cannot be healed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nuclear fallout would fulfil these words- see on :22.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will strike you with madness, blindness and astonishment of heart-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 28:14-28'>Deu 28:14-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:59-61'>Deu 28:59-61</a></em> predicted that mental disease would be one of the punishments for worshipping other gods/demons. This explains the association of demons with mental illness in the New Testament. But let it be noted that the language of demons is associated with illness, not sin. We do not read of Christ casting out demons of envy, murder etc. It must also be noted that the Bible speaks of people <em>having</em> a demon/disease, rather than saying that demons<em> caused</em> the disease. It is significant that the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) used the word <em>daimonion</em> for “idol”; this is the word translated “demon” in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall grope at noonday, as the blind gropes in darkness, and you shall not prosper in your ways. You shall be only oppressed and robbed always and there shall be none to save you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Nuclear fallout would fulfil these words- see on :22. The darkness that came down at the crucifixion would have recalled <em><a href='B:300 33:19-21'>Jer 33:19-21</a></em> - when day and night no longer follow their normal sequence, God is breaking His covenant. Israel’s condemnation would be that “even at midday you will grope like a blind man in the dark" (<em><a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a></em>). And yet the Lord would have known that He was suffering for Israel, treated as an apostate Israel, and thus He was the more inspired to pray for their ultimate forgiveness and salvation, seeing He had borne their condemnation. The Lord suffered “for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due" (<em><a href='B:290 53:8'>Isa 53:8</a></em> RVmg.). There are therefore elements of the crucifixion sufferings of Jesus in every suffering of natural Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will betroth a wife and another man shall lie with her. You will build a house and not dwell therein. You will plant a vineyard and not use its fruit-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord likened His preachers to men reaping a harvest. He speaks of how they fulfilled the proverb that one sows and another reaps (<em><a href='B:500 4:37-38'>Joh 4:37-38</a></em>). Yet this ‘proverb’ has no direct Biblical source. What we <em>do </em>find in the Old Testament is the repeated idea that if someone sows but another reaps, this is a sign that they are suffering God’s judgment for their sins (<em><a href='B:50 20:6'>Deu 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:30'>Deu 28:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 31:8'>Job 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 6:15'>Mic 6:15</a></em>). But the Lord turns around the ‘proverb’ concerning Israel’s condemnation; He makes it apply to the way that the preacher / reaper who doesn’t sow is the one who harvests others in converting them to Him. Surely His implication was that His preacher-reapers were those who had known condemnation for their sins, but on that basis were His humbled harvesters in the mission field.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your ox will be slain before your eyes and you shall not eat of it. Your donkey will be violently taken away from before your face and shall not be restored to you. Your sheep will be given to your enemies and you will have none to save you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle" (<em><a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 28:31'>Deu 28:31</a></em>) speaks of the "beasts of the earth / land" (<em><a href='B:50 28:26'>Deu 28:26</a></em>), who refer to the nations within the earth / land promised to Abraham. The use of cattle raiding language in <em><a href='B:330 38:12'>Eze 38:12</a></em> would then lead us to equate that latter day invasion with the final fulfilment of the curses upon Israel here.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your sons and your daughters will be given to another people and your eyes will look and fail with longing for them all day long; and there shall be no power in your hand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God said that the sign of His condemnation and rejection of Israel was that He would give their sons and daughters to be married to Gentiles (<em><a href='B:50 28:32'>Deu 28:32</a></em>). To willingly marry a Gentile was therefore to proclaim oneself as rejected from the Israel of God. The Lord Jesus had read these words and engaged with them; for He uses the picture of eyes failing with longing for the return of exiled children and applies it to the Father longing for the return of the prodigal son. That son clearly spoke of Israel in exile. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The fruit of your ground and all your labours shall a nation which you don’t know eat up, and you will be only oppressed and crushed always- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was clearly fulfilled at the time of the Babylonian invasion (<em><a href='B:300 5:17'>Jer 5:17</a></em>), but this only looked forward to the even greater fulfilment in the curses of the last days. It is repeatedly stressed that God's people would suffer at the hands of a nation they didn't know (<em><a href='B:300 14:18'>Jer 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:14'>Jer 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 17:4'>Jer 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 22:28'>Jer 22:28</a></em>). They did "know" the Babylonians, and had worshipped their gods. So "know" is used in the Hebraic sense of 'having a relationship with'. The idea may be that they would receive no mercy from those they were not in any relationship with.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>so that you will be mad because of the sight your eyes shall see- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This again speaks of the deep psychological trauma of God's people. See on :28. The deep distress would be at the sight of themselves covered in boils (:35). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will strike you in the knees and in the legs with a sore boil of which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This language is applied to Job (<em><a href='B:220 2:7'>Job 2:7</a></em>). He was clearly representative of Israel suffering the curses for disobedience. But he was a righteous man, and was saved in the end. He pointed forward to how the perfect Lord Jesus suffered the curses for Israel's sins, as their total representative. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will bring you and your king whom you will set over you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This makes these curses have specific reference to the Babylonian rather than Roman invasion. The latter day application may require Israel to put their trust in some charismatic leader.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To a nation that you have not known, you nor your fathers, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel and Judah are strongly rebuked by the prophets for their choice to do this, and are begged to cease doing so. But their freewill choice to sin was in fact a result of being cursed by God; they were led into sin, as it were, by God confirming them in the downward spiral they had chosen to be part of. In this case, if they didn’t want to be cursed, then they simply had to stop living out the curse in their lives. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference to Israel serving the gods of the nations to whom they are carried captive, gods which their ancestors abhorred, may refer to some accepting Islam in the last days. Indeed, <em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em> suggests that in the latter (Heb. end) times, Israel will specifically "do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands". This is the language commonly used concerning Israel's worship of the idols of the surrounding lands; if they are to specifically do this in the time of the end, it would seem reasonable to guess that this may refer to an acceptance of Islam. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will become an astonishment, a proverb and a byword among all the peoples where Yahweh shall lead you away- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But this was in order for a witness to be made to those nations. Hence LXX <em>"</em>And thou shalt be there for a wonder, and a parable". The tragedy of Israel's curses for disobedience is even now to be understood as an appeal to the Gentile world to take God seriously and repent. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will carry much seed out into the field and gather little in, for the locust shall consume it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The locust was a plague brought upon Egypt. The judgments upon the land of Israel in the last days are described in Revelation, and they are full of allusion to the plagues upon Egypt. The locust is a figure of Judah's latter day judgments (<em><a href='B:360 1:4'>Joe 1:4</a></em>). It is a theme with God that His apostate people are "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). If their hearts are really with Egypt / the world, then they will share the judgments of this world. The time for separation is now, just as the Egyptians had to identify with Israel if they wished to escape the plagues.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will plant vineyards and dress them but you shall neither drink of the wine nor harvest them, for the worm shall eat them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Just as the locust of :38 is alluded to in <em><a href='B:360 1:4'>Joe 1:4</a></em>, so <em><a href='B:360 1:4-7'>Joe 1:4-7</a></em> also alludes to the "worm" which destroys vines- and they are used as a symbol of Judah's latter day invaders. Maimonides in "A guide for the perplexed" makes a big issue about these worms of vine weevils. He claims that the various false gods and witches which Israel tended to worship and trust in all offered agricultural prosperity, and specifically offered protection from the dreaded vine weevils. The point is therefore made that all those gods and incantations would be revealed to Israel as powerless to turn away the curse for disobedience to the covenant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will have olive trees throughout all your borders but you shall not anoint yourself with the oil, for your olives shall drop off- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :39. The picture here is of labour in vain, so it was all a psychological punishment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will father sons and daughters but they shall not be yours, for they will go into captivity- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It has been observed that the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings have certain similarities. For example, they all quote the Deuteronomy version of Israel's earlier history, leading to the suggestion that Deuteronomy was the first of the collection, a kind of introductory background history. The curses listed in <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em> are all especially relevant to the situation in Judah before the Babylonian invasion, and a number of the curses are alluded to in Lamentations as being descriptive of the situation after the final destruction of Jerusalem. Some of the curses can have little other application, e.g. <em><a href='B:50 28:41'>Deu 28:41</a></em> speaks of begetting children, "but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity". Other relevant passages are <em><a href='B:50 28:36'>Deu 28:36</a></em> (a king taken captive), 49,50,52. These "former prophets" (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) appear to have been edited during the exile as history which spoke to the concerns and needs of the exiled people of God. This combined history speaks mainly of the southern Kingdom, which was the group who went to captivity in Babylon; and it explains why this captivity was justified, as well as giving many examples of where repentance could bring about a restoration (<em><a href='B:110 8:46-53'>1Ki 8:46-53</a></em> is specific). This history addresses the questions which concerned the captives- does God abandon His people for ever? Are Israel entirely to blame for what happened? Is there hope of restoration after receiving Divine judgment and breaching His covenant? Can God have a relationship with His people without a temple? To what extent will God always honour the promises to Abraham and David? Should other gods also be worshipped? Reading these books from this perspective reveals how incident after incident was especially selected by the inspired editors in Babylon in order to guide God's people there. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All your trees and the fruit of your ground shall the locust possess- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Joel's likening of the latter day invader to locusts (<em><a href='B:360 1:4'>Joe 1:4</a></em>) is perhaps based upon the prophecy that "locusts shall consume (the land)... the fruit of thy land shall the locust possess" (<em><a href='B:50 28:38'>Deu 28:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:42'>Deu 28:42</a></em> A.V. mg.). 'Possess' invites us to see the locusts as representative of a group of invaders. See on :43.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The foreigner who is in the midst of you shall mount up above you higher and higher- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This surely begs for an application to the Arab inhabitants of the (so called) Occupied Territories, who will no doubt join in with the 'locust' invasions, dominating the Jews as the Philistines did.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And you shall come down lower and lower- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Flesh must be humbled- either we do it now, we humble ourselves that we may be exalted in due time; or it will have to be done to us through the terror of rejection. Time and again ‘bringing low’ or ‘humiliation’ is the result of condemnation (<em><a href='B:50 28:43'>Deu 28:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 28:19'>2Ch 28:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 40:12'>Job 40:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:43'>Psa 106:43</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will lend to you and you shall not lend to him; he will be the head and you shall be the tail-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This has not had widespread fulfilment, but it must do in the latter day desolation of Israel- which presumably must last for a period of time for this to come true. There are various indications of a literal 1260 days, 42 months, three and a half year period of tribulation in the last days.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All these curses will come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As if the curses are to be equated with the invaders.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because you didn’t listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This began with God's first invitation to Israel to hear His voice. But they didn't want to and shied away, asking Moses to go and hear God's voice and relay it to them. This refusal to listen to His literal voice is being alluded to, and compared to their refusal to obey His voice / word. If they had been open to personal engagement with Yahweh their God, hearing His word spoken to them personally rather than retreating into mere religion and thereby placing God at a distance from them, then they would have been personally obedient to that voice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and they shall be to you and your seed a sign and a wonder forever-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Forever" here is clearly not used with the sense of literal eternity. Indeed there is no word for that in ancient Hebrew; <em>olahm</em> means really 'time out of mind'.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because you didn’t serve Yahweh your God with joyfulness and with gladness of heart because of the abundance of all things- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So often, the Mosaic law associates rejoicing with giving and sacrificing, for truly it is more blessed or happy to give than to receive. The Lord's teaching about this was clearly reflective of this major Mosaic theme (<em><a href='B:510 20:35'>Act 20:35</a></em>). But Israel sacrificed grudgingly, without joy. And this was of supreme significance to God as a reason for their condemnation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel would be rejected and cursed if they didn’t serve God “with gladness”. Service to God must be done with joy; if we lose the rejoicing of our hope, we lose the hope itself (<em><a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a></em>). Joy is therefore a vital characteristic of God’s true people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>therefore you shall serve your enemies whom Yahweh shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness and in want of all things- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is so relevant to the Lord's sufferings on the cross, when He bore Israel's condemnation. The whole of <em><a href='B:520 6:1-23'>Rom 6:1-23</a></em> plays on the idea that we are slaves to sin, and through entering Christ, we become slaves of righteousness. Total freedom to do what <em>we</em> personally want is not possible. We are slaves, we can't serve two masters. So why not serve Christ rather than the Biblical devil? Likewise Moses offered Israel the choice of bondservice to either Yahweh or their enemies (<em><a href='B:50 28:47-48'>Deu 28:47-48</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:400 2:3'>Mic 2:3</a></em> likewise reminds Israel that they will be under the yoke of judgment if they reject Yahweh’s yoke. The Lord spoke of His servants having a light yoke (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). The Bible minded among His hearers would have thought back to the threatened punishment of an iron yoke for the disobedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:48'>Deu 28:48</a></em>). 'It's a yoke either way', they would have concluded. But the Lord's yoke <em>even in this life</em> is light, and has promise of the life which is to come! The logic of taking it, with the restrictions it inevitably implies (for it is a yoke), is simply overpowering.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses offered Israel the choice of bondservice to either Yahweh or their enemies. The whole of <em><a href='B:520 6:1-23'>Rom 6:1-23</a></em> plays on this idea. We are slaves to sin, and through entering Christ by baptism, we become slaves of righteousness. Total freedom to do what <em>we</em> personally want is not possible. We are slaves, we can't serve two masters. So why not serve Christ rather than the Biblical devil? Jesus spoke of His servants having a light yoke (<em><a href='B:470 11:30'>Mat 11:30</a></em>). The Bible minded among His hearers would have thought back to the threatened punishment of an iron yoke for the disobedient (:48). 'It's a yoke either way', they would have concluded. But the Lord's yoke <em>even in this life</em> is light, and has promise of the life which is to come! The logic of taking it, with the restrictions it inevitably implies (for it is a yoke), is simply overpowering.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But this is the language of slave labour camps, working the Jews until they drop dead.&nbsp;This is one of a number of word pictures among the curses which recall the scenes of Nazi death camps. But even they were nothing to the scenes which tragically are yet to come in the last days.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flies; a nation whose language you will not understand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :10, the "earth" refers to the land promised to Abraham. They were invaded by a nation from the end of the earth, which Habakkuk defines as Babylon, a nation at the extremity of the land / earth promised to Abraham. Rome is not here in view. The latter day application is likewise to the nations within the land promised to Abraham, and not to "Rome". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>a nation of fierce face who will not respect the person of the old nor show favour to the young-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses not only repeats all the curses of <em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em> to them, but he adds even more, under inspiration (<em><a href='B:50 28:50-57'>Deu 28:50-57</a></em>). Presumably the Angel had explained in one of their conversations how Israel would suffer even greater punishment than what He had outlined in <em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em>.&nbsp; Notice in passing that <em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em> and <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em> are not strictly parallel. And in some ways, Moses became more demanding, whilst at the same time emphasizing grace and love.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will eat the fruit of your livestock and the fruit of your ground until you are destroyed. It will not leave you grain, new wine or oil, the increase of your livestock or the young of your flock, until it has caused you to perish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses not only repeats all the curses of <em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em> to them, but he adds even more, under inspiration. Presumably the Angel had explained in one of their conversations how Israel would suffer even greater punishment than that outlined in <em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em>.&nbsp; Notice that <em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em> and <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em> are not strictly parallel. Moses in his spiritual maturity urged Israel to be the more fully aware of the nature and reality of Divine punishment for human sin; his increased focus upon grace and salvation didn’t mean that he increasingly ignored the harder side of God- but rather the opposite was the case.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will besiege you in all your gates until your high and fortified walls come down in which you trusted, throughout all your land. It will besiege you in all your gates throughout all your land which Yahweh your God has given you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their trust in "high and fenced walls" (<em><a href='B:50 28:52'>Deu 28:52</a></em>) would have its latter-day equivalent in Israel's trust in its military deterrents and defences. The reference to the land Yahweh gave them would then refer to the events of 1948, in the latter day context. "High" is the word for "haughty" or proud, and modern Israel's pride in their defences will be brought down. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters, whom Yahweh your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plural "enemies" suggests that the siege in view would not be by one enemy but by a confederacy of them. And this is exactly the latter day prophetic scenario during Israel's final time of curing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man who is tender among you and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother and toward the wife of his heart and toward the remnant of his children whom he has remaining- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Biblical record seems to very frequently seek to deconstruct popular ideas about sin and evil. One of the most widespread notions was the "evil eye", whereby it was believed that some people had an "evil eye" which could bring distress into the eyes of those upon whom they looked in jealousy or anger. This concept is alive and well in many areas to this day. The idea entered Judaism very strongly after the Babylonian captivity; the Babylonian Talmud is full of references to it. The sage Rav attributed many illnesses to the evil eye, and the Talmud even claimed that 99 out of 100 people died prematurely from this (Bava Metzia 107b). The Biblical deconstruction of this is through stressing that <em>God's</em> eye is all powerful in the destiny of His people (<em><a href='B:50 11:12'>Deu 11:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:18'>Psa 33:18</a></em>); and that "an evil eye" refers to an <em>internal</em> attitude of mean spiritedness <em>within</em> people- e.g. an "evil eye" is understood as an ungenerous spirit in <em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:23'>Mat 6:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>; or pure selfishness in <em><a href='B:50 28:54'>Deu 28:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:56'>Deu 28:56</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 23:6'>Pro 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 28:22'>Pro 28:22</a></em>. We must remember that the people of Biblical times understood an "evil eye" as an <em>external</em> ability to look at someone and bring curses upon them. But the Bible redefines an "evil eye" as a purely <em>internal</em> attitude; and cosmic evil, even if it were to exist, need hold no fear for us- seeing the eyes of the only true God are running around the earth <em>for</em> us and not against us (<em><a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>so that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat, because he has nothing left in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in all your gates- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This clearly had a fulfilment at the time of <em><a href='B:120 6:28-29'>2Ki 6:28-29</a></em>. But all these incipient fulfillments only looked ahead to the greater one in the last days. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The tender and delicate woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye will be evil toward the husband of her heart and toward her son and her daughter- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The curses repeatedly stress the psychological torment. The sensitive woman would become desensitized by the desperation, so that her "eye will be evil". Her husband was the man "of her heart", but her eye or heart / mind will become "evil" toward him, and likewise toward her own children. The mental torment of those judged by God will be the main component of their judgment. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" speaks of this; for to behold the future they had missed, to perceive how easily they could have been there, will be an unbearable psychological trauma. All the dramatic figurative descriptions of condemnation are an attempt to portray this. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and toward her young one who comes out from between her feet and her children whom she shall bear; for she will eat them secretly, for want of all things in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in your gates- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This clearly had some application to the situation in AD70, but that whole scenario was but a foretaste of the situation in the last days. Most especially is Babylon called "the enemy": <em><a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 6:25'>Jer 6:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 15:11'>Jer 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 31:16'>Jer 31:16</a></em> and an impressive 11 times in Lamentations.&nbsp; 'Babylon' has specific latter-day application to the neighbouring enemies of Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you will not observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and fearful name, YAHWEH YOUR GOD-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For all Moses’ desire for Israel’s obedience, there are some subtle differences in his attitude to law and obedience between Deuteronomy, and the law earlier given. Thus in <em><a href='B:30 26:1-46'>Lev 26:1-46</a></em> it was stressed that obedience would bring blessing; whilst <em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em> says that obedience results in fearing the fearful Name of Yahweh and His glory. Fear shouldn’t lead to obedience; but obedience leads a man to <em>know and fear his God and His Name</em>. This is blessing enough. The Hebrew <em>yare</em> means both fear / dread, and also reverence / worship. Knowing the enveloping mercy of God should lead to a real fear of a God so gracious (<em><a href='B:230 5:7'>Psa 5:7</a></em>). However, obedience to God's commands would lead to a fear of Yahweh's glorious and fearful name (<em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em>); not the other way round, whereby fear of God leads to obedience. God's character is not just partly severe, partly gracious. His grace and His judgment of sin are wonderfully interconnected within His character. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Like Jacob and Job, Moses came to a fine appreciation of Yahweh’s Name at his latter end, perceiving that the wonder of relationship with God far eclipses any material blessing we may receive from Him in this life.&nbsp;To respect or fear the Name doesn't mean to remember that God’s Name is 'Yahweh'. It refers to his character (<em><a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a></em>). The Lord Jesus fed off the majesty of the Name of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:400 5:4'>Mic 5:4</a></em>)- this was how inspirational He found the things of the Name. To fear the Name of Yahweh involved practical obedience to “all the words of this law”. Meditation and sustained reflection upon the characteristics of God as epitomized and memorialized in His Name will of itself lead to a conforming of personality to that same Name. If we declare that Name to others, they too have the chance to be transformed by it- thus Moses comments that “I will proclaim the name of Yahweh; you, ascribe greatness to our God” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the commands of Moses’ law were in order to teach Israel to appreciate and respect the character and name of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em>) - therefore all this commands were a manifestation of the fundamental personality of the Father. Ditto for the words of Jesus, who was the prophet who would speak God’s word as Moses spoke it (<em><a href='B:50 18:15-18'>Deu 18:15-18</a></em>). Because Jesus would speak God’s word as Moses did, the words of Moses should be studied as much as the words of Jesus - as Jesus himself said (<em><a href='B:500 5:47'>Joh 5:47</a></em>). Yet do we <em>love</em> the Law of Moses as David did? Or do we not incline to be spiritually lazy, to be influenced by the (so called) New Testament Christianity of the apostate religious world around us? It is only by truly entering into the spirit of Moses’ words that we can really understand our Lord - he said this himself. And yet we would rather read Jesus’ words than those of Moses, because we can’t be bothered to make <em>the effort to understand the spirit of our Lord as it is revealed there</em>. And therefore we complain (if we are honest) of a lack of sense that we are having a real relationship with the Lord Jesus.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus fed off the majesty of the Name of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:400 5:4'>Mic 5:4</a></em>)- this was how inspirational He found the things of the Name. To fear the Name of Yahweh was to “observe to do all the words of this law” (<em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em>). Meditation and sustained reflection upon the characteristics of God as epitomized and memorialized in His Name will of itself lead to a conformation of personality to that same Name. If we declare that Name to others, they too have the chance to be transformed by it- thus Moses comments: “Because <em>I </em>will publish the name of the Lord, ascribe <em>ye</em> greatness unto our God” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then Yahweh will make your plagues terrible and the plagues of your seed, great plagues and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses and of long continuance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Then..." could suggest that when suffering the curses for disobedience, they would then be offered the opportunity for repentance. But if they refused this, then the plagues would not be of 'short continuance' as was potentially possible, but would last "long" (<em><a href='B:50 28:59'>Deu 28:59</a></em>), or made seven times heavier (<em><a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He will bring on you again all the diseases of Egypt which you feared, and they shall cling to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Sickness is from God and not a personal Satan. "<em>The Lord</em> will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a></em>); "an evil spirit <em>from the Lord</em> troubled (Saul)" (<em><a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a></em>); "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" (<em><a href='B:20 4:11'>Exo 4:11</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Legion's desire to see his mental disease return to the&nbsp;herds of swine probably stemmed from a need to know that his affliction had been cured in a rather permanent sort of way. And the Lord went along with this. The idea of transference of disease from one to another was a common Semitic perception, and it’s an idea used by God. And thus God went along with the peoples' idea of disease transference, and the result is recorded in terms of demons (which was how they understood illness) going from one person to another. Likewise the leprosy of Naaman clave to Gehazi (<em><a href='B:120 5:27'>2Ki 5:27</a></em>). God threatened to make the diseases of the inhabitants of Canaan and Egypt to cleave to Israel if they were disobedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a></em>). Here too, as with Legion, there is Divine accommodation to the ideas of disease transference which people had at the time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Also Yahweh will bring on you every sickness and every plague which is not written in the book of this law, until you are destroyed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Destroyed" is the word for "utterly destroyed", and is used of how God would utterly destroy Israel if they were disobedient to the covenant (<em><a href='B:50 4:26'>Deu 4:26</a></em>). God had used the word to speak of how He would totally destroy Israel and make a new nation from Moses (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 9:19'>Deu 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:25'>Deu 9:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a></em>), but Moses changed God's mind about that. But these later usages of the word are saying that this was going to happen, if Israel were disobedient. And they were, but it didn't happen. Individuals were 'utterly destroyed', but the word is used in <em><a href='B:370 9:8'>Amo 9:8</a></em> of how "I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob". This was all by pure grace. Just as the wages of sin is death for each of us, but by grace we are saved from that. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will be left few in number- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is hard to convincingly apply to any previous persecution, if it refers to numbers of Jews worldwide. However, it may refer specifically to the Jewish population of the land of Israel. There must therefore be a world-wide persecution of Jews for this to come about, or a total overrunning of the land of Israel, just as radical Islam dreams of. The tide of history is turning against the West, and this opens up the prospect of America and Britain also persecuting Jews. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whereas you were as the stars of the sky for multitude, because you didn’t listen to the voice of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Passages like <em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em> confidently proclaim that "When the Lord your God shall bring you into the land... and shall pluck off / cast out many nations...". Yet this casting out was dependent upon Israel doing this work; if they did it, God was eager to work mightily with them. But the reality is that they didn't drive out all the nations. This doesn't falsify Scripture; rather does it indicate the positive hope of God that His people will work with Him to make His potentially true prophecies turn into reality. Even the promises to Abraham were to some extent conditional- Israel would no longer be "as the stars of heaven for multitude; because you would not obey the voice of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 28:62'>Deu 28:62</a></em>). Hence the fulfillment of those promises was dependent to some extent upon the obedience of the promised seed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As Yahweh rejoiced over you to do you good and to multiply you, so Yahweh will rejoice over you to cause you to perish and to destroy you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were told that <em>because</em> they were the people of God, in covenant with Him, <em>therefore</em> they <em>had</em> to be obedient. If they were disobedient, they would be cursed. And if they backed out of being God’s people, they were also cursed (<em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:19'>Deu 27:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:26'>Deu 27:26</a></em>). There was no way back: total devotion to obedience. God would either rejoice over them to bless them, or rejoice over them to curse them (<em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>). He isn’t passive; His energy will be expended upon us one way or the other. There are only two types of builder, the wise and the foolish; two types of tree, yielding either good or bad fruit. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In Esther’s time, a decree was made to “destroy…and cause to perish” the Jews throughout the provinces of Persia / Babylon (<em><a href='B:190 3:13'>Est 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:190 7:4'>Est 7:4</a></em>). This phrase uses the two Hebrew words which we find together three times in the list of curses to be brought upon a disobedient Israel (<em><a href='B:50 28:20'>Deu 28:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:51'>Deu 28:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>). There evidently is a connection. And yet by her wonderful self-sacrificial mediation, Esther brought about the deferment and even annulment of those justifiable curses. God’s prophetic word was again changed- due to a mediator, who of course pointed both backwards to Moses, and forwards to the Lord Jesus.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had left Egypt with great riches of silver and gold, and this is "your silver and gold" which was to be multiplied even more (<em><a href='B:50 8:13'>Deu 8:13</a></em>). The multiplication of Abraham's seed promised to him clearly meant not simply numerical multiplication, but material multiplication too. That is the sense too in <em><a href='B:30 26:9'>Lev 26:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>. We wonder why God gave them all this blessing, knowing that it would lead to such spiritual temptation and failure. We wonder why He gives so many of His people today the same huge blessings, however unappreciated they are. One simple answer is that it is because He loves us with all the love of a father for his children; He rejoiced to multiply them (<em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>). The king of Israel was warned in the same words not to multiply silver and gold lest his heart turn away (<em><a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a></em>). The idea may be that we are to leave God to multiply our silver and gold if He wishes, and not set our heart to doing so.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will be plucked from off the land where you go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham was promised that his seed would have Yahweh as their personal God, and would eternally inherit the land. In a sense, the promises that the seed <em>would </em>inherit the land, and that God <em>would be</em> their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He <em>is </em>their God. And that land in a sense <em>was </em>given to the Jewish fathers (<em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a></em>). David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<em><a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a></em>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the <em>main</em> fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has <em>already</em> been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i.e., us! </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will scatter you among all peoples, from the one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, and there you shall serve other gods which you have not known - you nor your fathers - gods of wood and stone- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This refers to the "earth" in the sense of the land promised to Abraham; see on :10. The implication is that Jews now within the state of Israel will be scattered throughout that area in the last days.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Among these nations you shall find no ease and there shall be no rest for the sole of your foot. Yahweh will give you there a trembling heart and failing of eyes and pining of soul- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is in line with the state of psychological breakdown described and discussed on :20.&nbsp;We note how God can give people attitudes of heart; and positively, His Holy Spirit works directly upon the human spirit. God brought Israel out of Egypt in order to "cause him to rest" (<em><a href='B:300 31:20'>Jer 31:20</a></em>), s.w. "ease" here. But Israel didn't "find" that promised ease / rest, the Kingdom was prepared and made possible, but they refused it. And so any life without the Kingdom is but an aimless wandering.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and your life shall hang in doubt before you; you shall fear night and day and shall have no assurance of your life- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is one of a number of word pictures among the curses which recall the scenes of Nazi death camps. But even they were nothing to the scenes which tragically are yet to come in the last days. "Assurance" is the word for faith; their lives would have no faith / stability (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 20:12'>Num 20:12</a></em> etc.), as they had lived their lives without faith.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the morning you will say, I wish it were evening! and at evening you will say, I wish it were morning! for the fear of your heart which you shall fear and for the sight of your eyes which you shall see- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are links between Job and <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em>, connecting Job with a faithless Israel:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness" (<em><a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a></em>) = "They (the wicked; although the friends are getting at Job when they speak of them) meet with darkness in the daytime and grope in the noonday as in the night" (<em><a href='B:220 5:14'>Job 5:14</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The blind" (<em><a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a></em>) = Job had fits of blindness (<em><a href='B:220 22:10-11'>Job 22:10-11</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The Lord shall smite thee in&nbsp;the knees and in the legs with a sore botch from the sole of thy&nbsp;foot unto the top of thy head" (<em><a href='B:50 28:35'>Deu 28:35</a></em>) = "Boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown" (<em><a href='B:220 2:7'>Job 2:7</a></em>). These were inflicted by the satan, but by "The Lord" in <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em>. In practice, "the Lord" was the wilderness&nbsp;Angel; which is one of several indications that Job's satan was an Angel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"An astonishment" (<em><a href='B:50 28:37'>Deu 28:37</a></em>) = "Mark me (Job) and be astonished" (<em><a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 17:8'>Job 17:8</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"and a byword, among all nations" (<em><a href='B:50 28:37'>Deu 28:37</a></em>) = "A byword of the people" (<em><a href='B:220 17:6'>Job 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 30:9'>Job 30:9</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even!&nbsp;and at even thou shalt say,&nbsp;Would God it were morning" (<em><a href='B:50 28:67'>Deu 28:67</a></em>) = "When I lie down, I say, &nbsp;When shall I arise, and the night be gone? and I am full of tossings to and fro until the &nbsp;dawning" (<em><a href='B:220 7:4'>Job 7:4</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All the Jews' blessings from God were to be taken away and their children&nbsp;cursed: "Thou shalt beget sons and daughters but thou shalt not enjoy them" (<em><a href='B:50 28:41'>Deu 28:41</a></em>) = "Cattle... flocks of thy sheep", ditto for Job.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The Lord shall bring a nation against thee (<em><a href='B:50 28:49'>Deu 28:49</a></em>) = The Sabeans/ Chaldeans- forerunners of the Babylonians and Assyrians who punished Israel.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will bring you into Egypt again with ships by the way of which I said to you, You shall see it no more again, and there you shall sell yourselves to your enemies for bondservants and for bondmaids, and no man will buy you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Other Bible prophecies speak of a great re-gathering of a repentant Israel from dispersion around the return of Christ. It’s been tempting to apply this to Jewish emigration to Israel post 1948, but many of the prophecies in their context require that this return is part of a spiritual restoration. <em><a href='B:50 28:68'>Deu 28:68</a></em> speaks of Israel being punished by being taken into Egypt in ships- and it’s hard to find a very significant fulfilment of that prophecy to date. Such scattering of the Jews throughout the <em>eretz</em>, the territory of the land promised to Abraham, would fulfil the patterns set by Babylon, Assyria, Persia and Rome in their dominations of Israel. Such scattering is possible and likely, seeing that it is a requirement of the Hadith about jihad against Israel: “Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies... invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs... &nbsp;If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" (The Hadith, Book 19:4294, about Jihad). This paying of tax is likely to involve accepting the seal / mark of the beast, without which there can be no trading. "The land of Muhairs" refers to the lands of origin of the Moslem fighters; <em>muhair</em> means 'origin' in Arabic. This means that a mass deportation of Jews to other parts of the land promised to Abraham, the lands of origin of their enemies, is very much what the jihadists envisage. These concepts are particularly applied to the Jews, in Hadith 19:4363: "(Let us) go to the Jews... The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe... He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land... and they may have to go away leaving everything behind".</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At the time of Israel's repentance, God will "break the bands of your yoke" (<em><a href='B:330 34:27'>Eze 34:27</a></em>), using the language of their suffering in Egypt (<em><a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a></em>). If they are literally delivered from Egypt, this would fit nicely. The language of <em><a href='B:330 20:34-35'>Eze 20:34-35</a></em> recalls that of <em><a href='B:330 20:10'>Eze 20:10</a></em>: "I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness...I will bring you out from the people... and I will bring you into the wilderness of the people". Thus Israel's leaving the physical persecution of Egypt and being brought into the spiritual testing of the wilderness, will have its counterpart in the Jews being led out of the lands of their Arab captors, to be spiritually refined in "the wilderness of the people". “<em>There</em> will I plead with you", suggests that this " wilderness" is a specific country. There is good reason to think that this will be literal Egypt. <em><a href='B:290 19:18-25'>Isa 19:18-25</a></em> indicates that there will be repentant Jews in latter-day Egypt. "The wilderness of the people... the wilderness of the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:330 20:35'>Eze 20:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:35'>Eze 20:35</a></em>) will be the place of Israel's final latter-day refining. Thus Israel are brought out from their captivity in Arab lands, figurative 'Egypt', into <em>literal</em> Egypt, which will be the figurative 'wilderness' of spiritual testing.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a></em> could appear to be prophecy: “The Egyptians… you shall see them again no more for ever”. But it is understood as a command not to return to Egypt in <em><a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a></em> - and because of Israel turning back to Egypt in their hearts, they would be taken there again (<em><a href='B:50 28:68'>Deu 28:68</a></em>). So we must be prepared to accept that what may appear to be prophecy is in fact commandment, which we have the freewill to obey or disobey. Hence they would not go back there; and yet, God says, they will go back there.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:330 43:7'>Eze 43:7</a></em> likewise is more command than prediction: “The house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name” (RV). It isn’t saying ‘this is a prophecy that they will not do this’- for they did. Rather is it a plea, a command, that they are not to do this any more. So God’s promise that Israel would never again see Egypt was therefore conditional, and thus capable of being broken; although those conditions aren’t mentioned when He makes the promise in <em><a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>These are the words of the covenant which Yahweh commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This additional repetition of the covenant was because by grace, God wished to reaffirm the covenant even though Israel had broken their part of it- see on :13 and :23. The covenant on Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>) was reaffirmed in the plains of Moab (<em><a href='B:50 29:1'>Deu 29:1</a></em>) and on Joshua's death (<em><a href='B:60 24:25'>Jos 24:25</a></em>), and was to be reaffirmed every seven years (<em><a href='B:50 31:9-11'>Deu 31:9-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:25-26'>Deu 31:25-26</a></em>). It is this reaffirmation of covenant relationship which we make in the breaking of bread service.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses called all Israel and said to them, You have seen all that Yahweh did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land;-</em>As in <em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em> and <em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em> they had not literally seen these things- the audience by the end of Deuteronomy included those who had been born during the 40 years wandering. But historical events in God's word are as if we were there, hence David can rejoice as if he personally was delivered at the Red Sea. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the great trials which your eyes saw, the signs and those great wonders- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The individual Israelite was to perceive his absolute connection with God's historical deliverance of His people from Egypt. And to be appropriately awed by all the grace shown in that. In our world, human history is generally felt to be bunk, irrelevant to this generation, of merely passing cultural fascination to the hurrying man of modern society. And in some ways, that may indeed be a legitimate take on secular history. But Biblical history is to be seen quite otherwise by God's people. It is a living word spoken to us, and the salvation acts which are there recorded happened to us. We are to learn from history, not as a merely fascinating exercise. But the Bible is history, and yet it is a living word to us. Israel were supposed to reason back from the actions of Egypt towards them, and their weakness spiritually at that time. And to respond personally to that grace. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Yahweh has not given you a heart to know and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this day-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In :2 we are told "you have seen" , but they didn't spiritually 'see' what they saw with their physical eyes. God confirms people in the psychological attitudes they adopt.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not grown old on you and your shoes have not grown old on your feet-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The observation that their "clothes didn’t grow old, and their feet didn’t swell" is made in the context of lamenting that "Yet Yahweh has not given you a heart to perceive nor eyes to see nor ears to hear" (<em><a href='B:50 29:4'>Deu 29:4</a></em>). They refused to perceive His great and daily grace to them as witnessed in His daily provision of food and clothing, just as we can fail to perceive it today. Regular prayers of thanksgiving before food are a good way of guarding against this human tendency to not perceive such grace. The returned exiles likewise had been miraculously provided for by the decrees of the Persian kings, but refused to perceive the grace of all that provision (<em><a href='B:160 9:21'>Neh 9:21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You have not eaten bread neither have you drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am Yahweh your God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole process of Nazariteship was to encourage the normal Israelite to have the ambition to rise up to the spirit of the High Priest himself; the restrictions governing Nazariteship were a purposeful echo of those regarding the High Priest. The way God describes Himself as depriving Israel of "wine or strong drink" (<em><a href='B:50 29:6'>Deu 29:6</a></em>) throughout the wilderness journey is Nazarite language: as if in all their weakness and profligacy, God still sought to inspire them to rise up to the heights.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When we came to this place- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was standing with the people near the battlefield where they had won a victory which was intended as a foretaste of how they would conquer Canaan.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sihon the king of Heshbon and Og the king of Bashan came out against us to battle and we struck them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Divine intention was that the victory over Sihon would put fear into the hearts of all the other tribes (<em><a href='B:50 2:25'>Deu 2:25</a></em>). But it was God's ideal intention that Sihon would have accepted the message of peace (<em><a href='B:50 2:26'>Deu 2:26</a></em>)- perhaps implying peace with God, as "peace" often means in the Bible. We see here the complexity of God's workings with men. Little surprise, therefore, that at times we fail to perceive what God is doing in our lives. Things appear to be left hanging, or events lack apparent meaning, or things could have various possible outcomes, some of which are quite contradictory when compared against each other. This offering of peace before fighting was to be typical of Israel's approach (<em><a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and we took their land and gave it for an inheritance to the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of the Manassites-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To take and give land for an inheritance whilst still on the East side of Jordan was a foretaste of what was possible for them when they entered the land West of Jordan. The same terms are used about what Israel were to do with the rest of the land- although their fear of the Canaanite tribes suggests they didn't learn the lesson. It was a foretaste of the Kingdom... and our wilderness walk is designed, especially towards the end of it, to have similar foretastes encouraging us that really this is what we will experience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Keep therefore the words of this covenant and do them, so that you may prosper in all that you do-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a></em>. Joshua (cp. Jesus) is repeatedly made parallel with Israel (cp. Us); his victories were theirs; what he achieved is counted to them. In the same way, the people of the Lord Jesus are counted as Him. Joshua was to be strong and possess the land (<em><a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a></em>), just as they had been told to do, using the same Hebrew words (<em><a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a></em>). Indeed, Israel and Joshua are given parallel charges, to be strong and of good courage to take the land (<em><a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a></em>). Both Israel and Joshua are given the same charge to keep the words of the covenant, that they might “prosper” (<em><a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You stand this day, all of you, before Yahweh your God: your heads, your tribes, your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses on that last day of his life addressed the whole assembly of Israel; and yet he so often speaks in the singular ("thee" rather than "ye" in the KJV), as if to emphasize that the laws and covenant he was giving them was to them <em>personally</em>. This is made clear in :10,12: "You (plural) stand this day, all of you, before Yahweh... that you (singular) may enter into covenant with Yahweh". That covenant was made anew by God to each generation and individual. We cannot hide within a family or a church. We are individually responsible to God and will personally be saved. In the same spirit, Moses points out that Yahweh is the only God that can be personally <em>known</em>; all the idols could not be known personally (:26). No fewer than 137 times in Scripture we read the phrase "my God". This was used in a public, unashamed way by many of God's children (it was a particular favourite of Nehemiah, David and Paul). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>your little ones, your wives and the foreigner who is in the midst of your camps, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Verses 10-13 is a very long sentence; from now until the end of his speech in Deuteronomy, Moses uses (in the Hebrew text) very long sentences, at times with unclear syntax- as if he was getting increasingly intense and excited as he speaks of the utter realities to which we stand personally related by our covenant with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You wish to enter into covenant with Yahweh your God and into His oath, which Yahweh your God makes with you this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For Israel in covenant with God, absolutely nothing- not sex, menstruation, the content of clothing fabric, diet- could fall outside the scope of their covenant relationship. And so in principle it is with us under the new covenant. Such a relationship also precludes the worship of <em>any</em> other God. The covenant we have entered has constant and binding claims upon our loyalty; and it also speaks of God’s constant and passionate commitment to us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that He may establish you this day to Himself for a people and that He may be to you a God, as He spoke to you and as He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The promise that Israel would be God's people and He would be their God was conditional upon their obedience- that was the deal made with them nearly 40 years previously (<em><a href='B:20 19:5-6'>Exo 19:5-6</a></em>). They had not kept their side of it- but by grace, God still wanted to fulfill His side of it. Israel would be 'established' as God's people "unto Himself" only if they were obedient (<em><a href='B:50 28:9'>Deu 28:9</a></em>)- the point of the covenant proclaimed in chapter 29 is that despite their disobedience, God was still going to establish them as His people. This was the grace that only comes from a deep love and desire for the beloved. Moses urges the peoples' faithfulness so that Yahweh might "establish His covenant" with them (<em><a href='B:50 8:18'>Deu 8:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:9'>Deu 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:13'>Deu 29:13</a></em>); and we note that despite their disobedience, He still "established" the covenant with them, by grace alone (<em><a href='B:50 9:5'>Deu 9:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Not only with you do I make this covenant and this oath- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses is one of greatest types of the Lord Jesus, in whom the Father was supremely manifested. Because of this, it is fitting that we should see a very high level of God manifestation in Moses. Indeed it seems that God was manifest in Moses to a greater degree than in any other Old Testament character. Therefore the pronouns often change (in Deuteronomy especially), showing a confusion between the voice of God and that of Moses. <em><a href='B:50 7:4'>Deu 7:4</a></em> is an example: “They will turn away thy son from following me (this is Moses speaking for God)... so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you”. Thus Moses’ comments on God’s words are mixed up with the words of God Himself. There are other examples of this in <em><a href='B:50 7:11'>Deu 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:1'>Deu 29:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:10'>Deu 29:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:14-15'>Deu 29:14-15</a></em> (“I” cp. “us”). Consider especially <em><a href='B:50 11:13-14'>Deu 11:13-14</a></em>: “If ye shall diligently hearken unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord... that I will give you the rain of your land... I will send grass in thy fields”. The “I” here switches at ease between God and Moses. The Moses/God pronouns are also mixed in <em><a href='B:520 10:19'>Rom 10:19</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but with him who stands here with us this day before Yahweh our God and also with him who is not here with us this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Not only with you... but with him..." requires us to read in an ellipsis here; clearly the idea is that what God had done at Sinai wasn’t <em>only</em> between Him and the people there at that time, <em>not so much </em>with the first hearers as with the later ones, with all His subsequent people. In our Bible study we must be aware that we are reading translations of languages which often rely on understanding the idiom for their real meaning to be delivered to us the readers. In Hebrew especially, we often have to read in an ellipsis; and this verse is a parade example. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For you know how we lived in the land of Egypt and how we came through the midst of the nations through which you passed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The argument is that when living in Egypt and passing through the nations on the wilderness journey, they had "seen" idols (:17) and were now warned not to worship them (:18). And yet <em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em> is clear that they carried the idols of Egypt with them through the wilderness; they carried the tabernacles of both Yahweh and Moloch, the standards of their tribes and also the star or Remphan (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). Yahweh and Moses surely knew this, so the language here is very soft indeed. This overly positive view of Israel is in line with the way God says He fell in love with Israel in the desert, and did not count iniquity to them nor see perverseness in Jacob (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). His positive view of us in Christ is even greater. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you have seen their abominations and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :16. Israel passed through the nations at close enough range to see their idols. We should not therefore envisage the 38 year wilderness journey as being through endless tracts of uninhabited desert.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This covenant is made lest there should be among you man or woman, family or tribe- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Covenant relationship brings a natural desire to live within the atmosphere of God's spirituality. For Israel in covenant with God, absolutely nothing- not sex, menstruation, the content of clothing fabric, diet- could fall outside the scope of their covenant relationship. And so in principle it is with us under the new covenant. Such a relationship also precludes the worship of <em>any</em> other God. Moses said that God had made a covenant with every member of Israel "lest there should be among you..." any who turn away from God and influence others.&nbsp; The height of the demand, the extent of the implication of being in covenant with God, ought to preclude the possibility of worshipping anything else. The covenant we have entered has constant and binding claims upon our loyalty. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whose heart turns away this day from Yahweh our God, to go to serve the gods of those nations; lest there should be among you a root that bears gall and wormwood- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Applied in <em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em> to those within the church who discourage others from total commitment to God. Those who don’t totally commit to Him will poison others by their attitude and cause them to fall away from God’s grace; and we must be keenly aware of this, because there are such people around- so says <em><a href='B:650 12:15'>Heb 12:15</a></em>. The idea however seems to be that the root is the thought in the heart of :18, and if that was their thought as they entered covenant with Yahweh, then it would give rise to a bitter plant. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>who, when he hears the words of this curse blesses himself in his heart saying I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart- </em>The context is of the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, listed in the previous chapter. God here addresses the deepest psychology of the sinner. He hears the words of cursing for disobedience, but in his heart, says that the blessings for obedience will apply to him, even if he sins in his heart. And this is the assumption made by sinners- 'the condemnation stuff won't happen to me'. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To destroy the moist with the dry- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may refer to the mentality that the moist (the blessed righteous) will likely be destroyed anyway with the dry (unspiritual) majority, so seeing Israel generally are astray, there was no point in being righteous. This totally fails to see individual standing before God and thinks instead only of membership in a collective sense of God's people. "To add drunkenness to thirst" (AV) could however mean that the reasoning went that sin (getting drunk) was only anyway a natural meeting of basic human needs (to drink and slake thirst). Whatever, this is an indication that God knows the mind games played by the 'devil' of our own sin-inclined hearts. See on :29.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "peace and safety" cry within the latter day ecclesia (<em><a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a></em>) is part of an extended set of allusions back to the parables of <em><a href='B:470 24:1-51'>Mat 24:1-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:1-46'>Mat 25:1-46</a></em>, concerning the apostate, drunken servant who thinks everything is fine- but it then suddenly destroyed by his Lord's coming. This kind of believer had been foreseen by Moses in <em><a href='B:50 29:19'>Deu 29:19</a></em>; the type who hears the curses for disobedience, but blesses (forgives) himself in his heart, "saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst" (AV).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will not pardon him, but then the anger of Yahweh and His jealousy will smoke against that man, and all the curse that is written in this book shall lie on him, and Yahweh will blot out his name from under the sky- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh's refusal to pardon will only be at the last day, so these events may be intended as only coming fully true at judgment day.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that is written in this book of the law-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ministering of judgement on the unworthy will no doubt be supervised by an (the?) Angel of evil, in the same way that it appears an Angel of evil ministered the curses of the Law: "The Lord shall separate (Hebrew: sever) him (the disobedient man) out of all the&nbsp; tribes of Israel, according to all the words of the covenant" (<em><a href='B:50 29:21'>Deu 29:21</a></em>)- just as He did to Achan. In the same way the Angels "sever the wicked from among the just" (<em><a href='B:470 13:49'>Mat 13:49</a></em>) at the judgement. The picture of the rejected severed from among God's people is fairly common in the pictures of condemnation- the people of God shall see the naked shame of the rejected (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:16:15'>Rev 16:15</a></em>). Willful separation from God's people in this life, either by thinking them worthy of our rejection or through disinterest in them, is therefore living out the picture of condemnation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The generation to come, your children who shall rise up after you and the foreigner who will come from a distant land, shall see the plagues of the land and the sicknesses with which Yahweh has made it sick- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The curses for disobedience outlined in <em><a href='B:50 28:1-68'>Deu 28:1-68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:1-29'>Deu 29:1-29</a></em> never came totally true; hence the prophecy that disobedient Israel would be poor and unsuccessful in business during their dispersion never really came true, and instead God had blessed them through His grace. The whole land of Israel was to become “brimstone and salt and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom…” (<em><a href='B:50 29:22-25'>Deu 29:22-25</a></em>). It’s no good even reasoning that this will come true in the future; these were to be the punishments that would come when Israel broke covenant and went into dispersion. They’ve been in this position for many centuries, but still the full extent of the prophesied cursing hasn’t come about. And yet God keeps His word; and yet His grace is such that He can chose not to keep some of the punishments. This is a paradox of grace, beyond our human explanation in trite, logical, expositional terms.&nbsp;This to my mind is the real explanation of why the prophecy that in the day Adam ate of the fruit, he would die… never came true, in that sense. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The whole land is sulphur, salt and burning, that it is not sown nor giving produce and no grass grows therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overthrew in His anger and in his wrath-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were disobedient, but still this promised judgment didn't come. This chapter is full of grace; for Israel was never made as Sodom although this was commonly threatened. Although they acted worse than Sodom (<em><a href='B:330 16:48'>Eze 16:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 7:16'>Jer 7:16</a></em>). It was due to the faithful remnant that God did not judge Judah as Sodom even though their rulers were in fact rulers of Sodom (<em><a href='B:290 1:9-10'>Isa 1:9-10</a></em>). They were Sodom, disobedient Israel were to be judged as Sodom (<em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>), but were not judged as Sodom because of a remnant- who themselves were preserved by God's grace. We see grace all through this. Although <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:1-24'>Rev 18:1-24</a></em> and many of the prophets seem to foresee a Sodom-like destruction coming upon latter day Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They and all the nations shall say, Why has Yahweh done thus to this land? What does the heat of this great anger mean?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no particular example of this oft repeated curse coming true, apart from in <em><a href='B:310 2:15'>Lam 2:15</a></em>, which appears to be spoken by Jeremiah in deep grief, and does not include the words predicted here and in :25. The actual destruction of Jerusalem and Judah was not as extensive as threatened; either God took pity, or there was a modicum of intercession or repentance which ameliorated the extent of the judgment. And that would explain why neither in the Bible nor other history is there any record of this happening. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then men shall say, Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them forth out of the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :24. The idea was that the destroyed land would be a silent witness to the power of Yahweh, and how this God who kept covenant was now as it were 'free' as His earlier people had betrayed Him and left Him without a people. The deserted city and ruined temple (<em><a href='B:110 9:8-9'>1Ki 9:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 22:8-9'>Jer 22:8-9</a></em>) would therefore have been an invitation to observers to seek this Yahweh, and enquire whether they could enter a new covenant with Him, seeing His previous covenant with His people had been broken and He was now, as it were, unattached.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:70 2:13'>Jdg 2:13</a></em> says that the people did forsake Yahweh. But instead of these judgments , we are to read that although God punished them, He raised up saviours to save them from the judgments; and this looks forward to His grace in the Lord Jesus, 'Yah's salvation'. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and went and served other gods and worshipped them, gods that they didn’t know and that He had not given to them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses points out that Yahweh is the only God that can be personally <em>known</em>; all the idols could not be known personally (<em><a href='B:50 29:26'>Deu 29:26</a></em>). No fewer than 137 times in Scripture we read the phrase "my God". This was used in a public, unashamed way by many of God's children (it was a particular favourite of Nehemiah, David and Paul). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against this land, to bring on it all the curse that is written in this book- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :25,26. The fact is, not all the curses were brought upon the land. But the allusions to the language of :22,23 in the book of Revelation suggests that it will come true in the last days, and will be the prelude to the conversion of a Gentile remnant at the time of the Lord's return and establishment of His Kingdom on earth. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and Yahweh rooted them out of their land in anger in wrath and in great indignation and cast them into another land, as at this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Israel were "cast" out of their land and into another country (<em><a href='B:50 29:28'>Deu 29:28</a></em>) so the rejected are cast out of God's presence. Zedekiah fled, was overtaken, wept (<em><a href='B:330 7:27'>Eze 7:27</a></em>), judgment was given upon him (<em><a href='B:300 52:9'>Jer 52:9</a></em>), he was punished in the presence of the king (<em><a href='B:300 52:10'>Jer 52:10</a></em>), cast into prison (<em><a href='B:300 52:11'>Jer 52:11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could be translated as meaning that the secret things of God have been revealed unto God's children. Or it could mean that the things which have been revealed are the Law and Covenant made with Israel then, but they should not think that this was all there was to God. There was more, the "secret things", which had not then been opened to them. And those things were the things of Christ and the new covenant- <em><a href='B:530 2:9-10'>1Co 2:9-10</a></em> appears to allude here by saying that "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love Him. But God has revealed them unto us by His Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God" .</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The immediate context of the "secret things" is :19, where they refer to the secret thought that one could continue in sin, and just be treated by God as He was going to treat the nation of Israel. But the warning here would be that God indeed does know the secret things of hearts, and will judge people on an individual and not a collective basis. And this is indeed how the New Testament speaks of God's individual judgment of the secret things of human hearts (<em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:25'>1Co 14:25</a></em>). Therefore the lesson is that the revealed things of God's law 'belonged to' Israel for them to keep individually.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Forever" doesn't require us to think that the Mosaic law and covenant was eternal. The Sabbath is described as a perpetual, eternal ordinance between God and His people (<em><a href='B:20 31:16'>Exo 31:16</a></em>). Yet in the New Testament we read that the Old Covenant has been done away; and the Old Covenant clearly included the ten commandments (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>), one of which was concerning the Sabbath. For this reason the New Testament is at pains to explain that Sabbath keeping is not now required of God’s people (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:1-3'>Rom 14:1-3</a></em>). Indeed, the whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (<em><a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:29'>Deu 29:29</a></em>), but it has now been done away (<em><a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a></em>). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (<em><a href='B:30 16:34'>Lev 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ (<em><a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (<em><a href='B:20 40:15'>Exo 40:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a></em>), but “the priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (<em><a href='B:650 7:12'>Heb 7:12</a></em>). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (<em><a href='B:30 24:8'>Lev 24:8</a></em>). This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled. But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em> concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word olahm, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the spectre of ultimate infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very much from a human viewpoint. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When all these things have come on you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where Yahweh your God has driven you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We're wrong to think that God passionlessly waits for us to repent or pray to Him, and then He will forgive or act for us. He loves us, simply so; and with all love's manipulation of circumstances, seeks to pour out His love upon us. Thus repentance itself is a gift which God gives and is not totally upon human initiative (<em><a href='B:50 4:29-31'>Deu 4:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:1-10'>Deu 30:1-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:58'>1Ki 8:58</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses by the end of his life had a great sensitivity to the likely failures of Israel, and in this he points forward to the Lord Jesus. He often reminds them that he knows that they will turn away from the Covenant he had given them (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 30:1'>Deu 30:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>). He knew that one day they would want a king, even though God was their king (<em><a href='B:50 17:14'>Deu 17:14</a></em>). He knew that there would always be poor people in the land, even though if the Law was properly kept this would not be the case (<em><a href='B:50 15:4'>Deu 15:4</a></em> mg, 11). He knew they would accidentally commit murder and would need a way of escape; therefore he twice repeats and explains the law concerning the cities of refuge (<em><a href='B:50 4:42'>Deu 4:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:5'>Deu 19:5</a></em>). These being a symbol of the future Messiah (<em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>), this emphasis would suggest that like Paul and Jacob, the mind of Moses in his time of spiritual maturity was firmly fixed on the Lord Jesus Christ. He foresaw how they would see horses and chariots and get frightened (<em><a href='B:50 20:1-4'>Deu 20:1-4</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and return to Yahweh your God and obey His voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This point of return of repentance is when all the curses of <em><a href='B:50 29:1-29'>Deu 29:1-29</a></em> have come upon Israel (:1). But as noted on <em><a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a></em>, the level of curse stated there has never come upon Israel: "The whole land is sulphur, salt and burning, that it is not sown nor giving produce and no grass grows therein, like the overthrow of Sodom". It waits to be fulfilled therefore in the last days, and so this 'returning' ultimately speaks of the latter day repentance of a minority in Israel once the tribulation comes upon the land. Revelation gives more details of all this. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then Yahweh your God will turn your captivity and have compassion on you. He will return and gather you from all the peoples where Yahweh your God has scattered you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s attempt to regather Judah from captivity <em>before</em> they had repented therefore indicates His grace, operating at times beyond the conditions which He has stated in His own word. LXX "the Lord shall heal thine iniquities, and shall pity thee, and shall again gather you..." suggests that there will be a psychological action of God upon the hearts of Israel, healing their sin (:6). This will be as a result of accepting the new covenant which we now accept at baptism, when the law is written on our hearts, and God's Spirit transforms our spirit / heart (<em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:10'>Heb 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:16'>Heb 10:16</a></em>). See on :14. "Shall<em> again</em> gather you" suggests that the restoration from Babylon will be repeated in the last days.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of the heavens, from there will Yahweh your God gather you, and from there He will bring you back- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again in the context of the restoration it is emphasized that God would return to His people if they returned to Him (<em><a href='B:450 1:3'>Zec 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 3:7'>Mal 3:7</a></em>). And they didn't return to Him- most chose not to return to the land, and those who did for the most part did not return to their God in their hearts. The whole basis of Israel's covenant relationship with God was that if they were exiled from the land for their sins, they must repent and <em>then </em>God would return to them (<em><a href='B:50 30:1-10'>Deu 30:1-10</a></em>). Yet God graciously states to the exiles: "I am returned unto you" (<em><a href='B:450 1:16'>Zec 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:3'>Zec 8:3</a></em>). Here was grace indeed. Passages like <em><a href='B:330 36:24-31'>Eze 36:24-31</a></em> therefore speak as if God's grace to the exiles was effectively a new covenant- which has in essence been extended to us. Having stated the conditionality of His 'returning' to His people, and recognizing they hadn't fulfilled their part of the conditions- God all the same returns to them, such was and is His almost desperate desire for relationship with His beloved people. This is a lesson for us in our relationships with others- to continue our acceptance and 'return' to them, even if they don't fulfill their part of the deal. For this, day by day, is how our God deals not only with us but with His weak and wayward people as a whole.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed and you shall possess it, and He will do you good and multiply you above your fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the&nbsp; Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take possession of all the land (<em><a href='B:60 11:23'>Jos 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:1'>Jos 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 16:10'>Jos 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:3'>Jos 18:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:4'>Jos 23:4</a></em>). The language of inheritance / possession is applied to us in the New Testament (<em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:14'>Eph 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em> etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess it" (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to possessing the land (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:18'>Deu 30:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:13'>Deu 31:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>), but when they got there they didn't possess it fully. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Abraham was promised that his seed would have Yahweh as their personal God, and would eternally inherit the land. In a sense, the promises that the seed <em>would </em>inherit the land, and that God <em>would be</em> their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He <em>is </em>their God. And that land in a sense <em>was </em>given to the Jewish fathers (<em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a></em>). David could praise God simply because He was ''my God'' (<em><a href='B:230 118:28'>Psa 118:28</a></em>)- an allusion back to the Abrahamic promise. Of course, the <em>main</em> fulfillment of this promise will be in the Kingdom; but in principle, the promise has <em>already</em> been fulfilled to Abraham's seed- i.e., us! </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had left Egypt with great riches of silver and gold, and this is "your silver and gold" which was to be multiplied even more (<em><a href='B:50 8:13'>Deu 8:13</a></em>). The multiplication of Abraham's seed promised to him clearly meant not simply numerical multiplication, but material multiplication too. That is the sense too in <em><a href='B:30 26:9'>Lev 26:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>. We wonder why God gave them all this blessing, knowing that it would lead to such spiritual temptation and failure. We wonder why He gives so many of His people today the same huge blessings, however unappreciated they are. One simple answer is that it is because He loves us with all the love of a father for his children; He rejoiced to multiply them (<em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>). The king of Israel was warned in the same words not to multiply silver and gold lest his heart turn away (<em><a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a></em>). The idea may be that we are to leave God to multiply our silver and gold if He wishes, and not set our heart to doing so.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Things 'going well / good' with Israel is the language of the Kingdom of God in <em><a href='B:50 8:16'>Deu 8:16</a></em> "to do you good / well at your latter end". It is associated with days being prolonged (<em><a href='B:50 22:7'>Deu 22:7</a></em>) and the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham (<em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>), and Israel and the children somehow existing "forever" (<em><a href='B:50 12:28'>Deu 12:28</a></em>). So I deduce in the wish "that it may go well with you" a hint towards the eternal establishment of God's Kingdom based around Israel, what Paul terms "the hope of Israel". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If Israel took the initiative in attempting to circumcise their hearts (<em><a href='B:50 10:16'>Deu 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a></em>), then God would confirm them in this by doing what man cannot do- operating directly upon the human heart to cut off the flesh from it (<em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a></em> presents baptism as the equivalent in our day if we wish to enter the new covenant, which is based upon the same promises to Abraham. But there is more to new covenant relationship than simply the ritual of baptism. Circumcision spoke of a cutting off of the flesh in the most private and intimate place. We always read of circumcision as being done to a person. Water baptism enables us to receive the birth of the Spirit, whereby the Lord will work through the Spirit to change our hearts, to cut off our flesh in the most private and personal recesses of human hearts. <em><a href='B:580 2:11'>Col 2:11</a></em> explains: "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ". Through baptism, we enter the "in Christ" status, and our flesh is as it were cut off, by status we are in Him and not in the flesh. This is repeated in Paul's argument in <em><a href='B:520 1:1-32'>Rom 1:1-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:1-29'>Rom 2:1-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:1-31'>Rom 3:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:1-25'>Rom 4:1-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:1-21'>Rom 5:1-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:1-23'>Rom 6:1-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:1-25'>Rom 7:1-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:1-39'>Rom 8:1-39</a></em>, although there he stresses that our flesh still remains; but from God's perspective, it is cut off. It takes faith to believe this- faith in God's operation, that the circumcision operation was really performed by Him (<em><a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a></em>). Baptism is the means by which we become "in Christ" and in spiritual terms cease to be uncircumcised (<em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There will be a psychological action of God upon the hearts of Israel, healing their sin (see on :3). This will be as a result of accepting the new covenant which we now accept at baptism, when the law is written on our hearts, and God's Spirit transforms our spirit / heart (<em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:10'>Heb 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:16'>Heb 10:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Some time, read through the book of Deuteronomy in one or two sessions. You'll see many themes of Moses in Deuteronomy. It really shows how Moses felt towards Israel, and how the Lord Jesus feels towards us, and especially how he felt towards us just before his death. For this is what the whole book prefigures. "Love" and the idea of love occurs far more in Deuteronomy than in the other books of the Law. "Fear the Lord your God" of <em><a href='B:20 9:30'>Exo 9:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:14'>Lev 19:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:32'>Lev 19:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:17'>Lev 25:17</a></em> becomes "love the Lord your God" in Deuteronomy (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>). There are 23 references to not hating in Deuteronomy, compared to only 5 in Ex. - Num.; Moses saw the danger of bitterness and lack of love. He saw these things as the spiritual cancer they are, in his time of maturity he warned his beloved people against them. His mind was full of them. The LXX uses the word ekklesia eight times in Deuteronomy, but not once in Moses' other words (<em><a href='B:50 4:10'>Deu 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 9:10'>Deu 9:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:16'>Deu 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:1-3'>Deu 23:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:8'>Deu 23:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). Responsibility for the whole family God had redeemed was a mark of Moses; maturity at the end of his life, at the time of Deuteronomy. It is observable that both as a community and as individuals, this will be a sign of our maturity too.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Love the Lord your God with <em>all </em>your heart, and with <em>all </em>your soul, and with <em>all </em>your might". Time and again, Moses in his final hours used these words, as he pleaded on that last day of his life for Israel to grasp the nettle, to take on board the idea of loving God, of giving our all (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:12'>Deu 10:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:3'>Deu 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>; an impressive seven-fold emphasis). I can almost hear his voice cracking as he stressed the word "all". Having pleaded six times for them to love God with <em>all </em>their soul and <em>all</em> their might, Moses then makes the point that if they enter the Kingdom, there they will be <em>made by God</em> to love Him then with all their soul and might (<em><a href='B:50 30:6'>Deu 30:6</a></em>). The logic is over-powering. In the Kingdom, our very nature, every fiber of our being, will be bent towards love of God. If this will be our eternal destiny, isn't it logical that we at least aspire to it now?</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you and persecuted you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The curses upon Israel will then come upon their haters. This is exactly the message of the book of Revelation, once we accept the book speaks of the latter day events to come upon the earth / land of Israel. The seals, vials and trumpets are all rather similar in their imagery and effect- because the judgments which come upon latter day Israel (the seals) then come upon their abusers within the land promised to Abraham- after the repentance of a Jewish remnant, which is presented in the visions of the 144,000. What the beast coalition did to Israel is done to her- a major theme of Revelation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh and do all His commandments which I command you this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for ‘hear’ is also translated ‘obey’ (<em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:8'>Deu 30:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 95:7'>Psa 95:7</a></em>). We can hear God’s word and not obey it. But if we really hear it as we are intended to, we will obey it. If we truly believe God’s word to be His voice personally speaking to us, then we will by the very fact of hearing, obey. The message itself, if heard properly and not just on a surface level, will compel action. We can delight to know God’s laws and pray daily to Him, when at the same time we are forsaking Him and His laws; if we are truly obedient, then we will delight in God’s law (<em><a href='B:290 58:2'>Isa 58:2</a></em> cp. 14). We have a tendency to have a love of and delight in God’s law only on the surface. John especially often uses ‘hearing’ to mean ‘believing’ (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:26-27'>Joh 10:26-27</a></em>). And yet the Jews ‘heard’ but didn’t believe. We must, we really must ask ourselves: whether we merely hear, or hear and believe. For we can hear, but not really hear. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, in the fruit of your livestock and in the fruit of your ground, for good. Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as He rejoiced over your fathers- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have explained above that the scenario here envisaged is when the curses of <em><a href='B:50 29:1-29'>Deu 29:1-29</a></em> have come upon Israel, which they have not yet done. This is yet to come, and as a result, a remnant of Israel will repent and their curses will come upon their latter day abusers. The description here of material blessing then applies to the situation when a restored Israel become the basis of the Kingdom of God upon earth. Yahweh rejoicing over His people is the prophetic picture of that time (<em><a href='B:290 62:5'>Isa 62:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 3:17'>Zep 3:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>if you will obey the voice of Yahweh your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if you turn to Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have explained above on :9 and elsewhere that the ultimate fulfilment of this is when Israel repent in the last days. But the scenario could have happened earlier, in which case the repentance would have been shown by obeying the Mosaic law. But that law and covenant has now been abrogated, so it is the essence and not the letter of these things which will come true in the last days.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word so often used for "keeping" / "diligently observing" Yahweh's commandments is from the word meaning a thorn hedge; the idea originally was to hedge in. Taking this too literally led Judaism to all their endless fences around the law, i.e. forbidding this or that because it might lead to doing that or this, which in turn would then lead to breaking an actual commandment. And those various fences become elevated to the level of commandments. But this is not the idea. We are indeed to hedge ourselves in ("take heed to yourself", <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> s.w.), so that we may keep / hedge ourselves in to keep the commandments of God (<em><a href='B:30 18:4-5'>Lev 18:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:30'>Lev 18:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 19:37'>Lev 19:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:8'>Lev 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 20:22'>Lev 20:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:9'>Lev 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:31'>Lev 22:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:18'>Lev 25:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:3'>Lev 26:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 7:11-12'>Deu 7:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a></em> (s.w. "beware"); 10:13; 11:1,8,22,32; 12:1; 13:4,18; 15:5,9 ("beware"); 17:19; 19:9; 23:9 ("keep yourself"); 24:8; 26:16-18; 27:1; 28:1,9,13; 29:9; 30:10,16; 31:12; 32:46). And without falling into the legalism of Judaism, self discipline does require a degree of fencing ourselves in to the one way. Thus the man struggling with alcoholism avoids the supermarket where alcohol is pushed in front of the eyes of the shoppers; the married woman struggling with attraction to another man makes little laws for herself about avoiding his company. And if we do this, then the Lord will "keep" us, will hedge us in to keeping His way (s.w. <em><a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses assures them that full obedience to his Law is possible (even if finally nobody achieved it). It was "not grievous" (LXX), and the LXX is quoted and applied to us in <em><a href='B:690 5:3'>1Jn 5:3</a></em>. It was Judaism and legalism which made obedience to the law "grievous" (<em><a href='B:470 23:4'>Mat 23:4</a></em>), and again this LXX passage was alluded to by the Lord in saying that. The individual commandments of the law of Moses were designed to reinforce each other and to make obedience relatively easy. Hence NET Bible: "This commandment I am giving you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it too remote". It wasn’t as if they had to climb up to Heaven or go down beneath the sea, they had to simply from the heart obey it as a way of life and thinking. In <em><a href='B:520 10:6-9'>Rom 10:6-9</a></em> Paul quotes this passage, having observed that in practice nobody has actually succeeded in fully keeping the Law. He says that the going up to Heaven was done by Christ at His ascension, and going beneath the sea and returning by Christ at His resurrection; and so what remains is not to keep the Mosaic law but to believe in the word of Christ; and the “life” promised here (:15) will be <em>eternal</em> life for those in Christ. See on :12.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven and bring it back down to us and make us hear it, that we may do it?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul comments that truly Israel have already heard the essence of the Gospel we preach, in that “the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach” (<em><a href='B:520 10:8'>Rom 10:8</a></em>). He quotes here from <em><a href='B:50 30:12'>Deu 30:12</a></em>: “For this command (to be obedient- or, as Paul interprets it, the word of the Gospel)... is it not far from thee (cp. how God is “not far” from anybody, <em><a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a></em>). It is not in heaven above, that thou shouldest say, Who will ascend for us into heaven, and bring it to us, that we may <em>hear and do it</em>” (<em><a href='B:50 30:12'>Deu 30:12</a></em> LXX). As noted on :11, obedience is presented as not difficult; and this perhaps became true when the command to keep the old covenant was reinterpreted as keeping the new covenant, through faith in Jesus. God wants to save us; so conformity to His conditions (faith in Jesus) are not difficult.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Moses spoke these words on the last day of his life, he was at the foot of Nebo, which he ascended for his final meeting with God. He is surely alluding to the way in which he had ‘ascended to heaven’ before in ascending to God on Sinai, fulfilling Israel’s wish that he should bring God’s word to them rather than God Himself speak with them. He had returned bringing God’s word to them, to which they had agreed they would “hear and do”. Earlier, in <em><a href='B:50 5:27'>Deu 5:27</a></em>, Moses had reminded the people how they had said: “Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will <em>hear it, and do</em> it”. Now he is telling them that actually the word he had brought to them needn’t have been brought to them as in essence it was within their hearts. It is for exactly this reason that Paul could reason elsewhere in Romans that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the Law, although they don’t know the letter of the Law. And the same principle is found in <em><a href='B:590 4:9'>1Th 4:9</a></em>: “As touching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves (i.e. from within yourselves?) are taught of God to love one another”. This is rather like how the Gentiles were not ‘written unto’ and yet they knew from their conscience the essential spirit of the Mosaic Law.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go down into the deeps for us and bring it up to us-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The depths or abyss may refer as in <em><a href='B:520 10:7'>Rom 10:7</a></em> to the lands beyond Israel. The beast that comes out of the abyss comes out of the sea (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:11:7'>Rev 11:7</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:13:1'>Rev 13:1</a></em>). It seems that the geographical area referred to is that just outside the <em>eretz</em> / land promised to Abraham, the sea on the border of the land, as it were. Iran, Egypt or Turkey would fit this. Israel had no need to go outside to the Gentile world in order to find relationship with God.&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And make us hear it, that we may do it?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "make it audible to us, and we will do it?". The allusion is how Israel had shied away from hearing God's personal voice, and had asked Moses to go and hear that voice and tell it to them, "that we may do it". But what was in view was a new covenant, where the word would not be spoken collectively through a mediator, but directly to the heart (:14). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What was hinted at was a new covenant, where after repentance, God would put His word into their hearts (see on :3,6). And therefore these words are quoted by Paul in the New Testament about the experience of believers today. Acceptance of the new covenant means the receipt of the Holy Spirit, and God placing His word in our hearts, writing His law in our hearts as promised (<em><a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:10'>Heb 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:16'>Heb 10:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Paul therefore defines the word here as "That is, the word of faith, which we preach".</em> The word of the simple Gospel- that if you believe in Christ you shall be saved- was enabled by the Lord's resurrection and shall come to full term in His descent from Heaven at the last day (<em><a href='B:520 10:6-7'>Rom 10:6-7</a></em>). "The word of faith" can simply mean that the basic content of God's word is an appeal for faith in His Son. But it is thereby also true that the word of the Gospel leads to faith. The Lord foresaw in <em><a href='B:500 17:20'>Joh 17:20</a></em> that there would be those who would believe on Him “through their word” (i.e. the word taught by the disciples). Our word of preaching can bring others to faith. Our preaching leads to faith being created in the hearers. “The word of faith, which we preach” (<em><a href='B:520 10:8'>Rom 10:8</a></em>) is the word (Gospel) that leads to faith; and a man cannot believe without hearing the Gospel, and he will not hear it unless it is preached by a preacher. Paul summarizes by saying that faith comes by hearing (the Gospel) and hearing by (the preaching of) the word of God (<em><a href='B:520 10:8'>Rom 10:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:14'>Rom 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>). Paul’s point is that whoever believes will be saved (<em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>)- and therefore, we must preach to all, so that they might take advantage of this blessed opportunity. In his repetitious manner, Paul builds up the argument in this letter:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Even under the law, Israel could believe God’s word as preached by Moses and have righteousness imputed to them (<em><a href='B:520 10:5-8'>Rom 10:5-8</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- We preach, in essence, the very same word (<em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Isaiah said the same: that belief of his preaching would result in justification (<em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- We preach the same. Whoever believes in the Lord’s saving Name by baptism will be saved (<em><a href='B:520 10:12-13'>Rom 10:12-13</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Therefore preach the word, for without your doing this, people can never believe it and therefore be saved (<em><a href='B:520 10:14-15'>Rom 10:14-15</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Israel had heard the word of the cross preached in the past, so just hearing the preacher will not automatically result in faith (<em><a href='B:520 10:16-21'>Rom 10:16-21</a></em>). Both preacher and hearer must be aware of this. Therefore there was a need for the preachers to turn to another wider audience, i.e. the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As with Israel, the ways of life and death are set before us (<em><a href='B:50 30:15-20'>Deu 30:15-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 21:8'>Jer 21:8</a></em>). Moses, on the day of his death and at his final spiritual maturity, realized that this was the ultimate choice. His appeal to <em>therefore </em>chose life is painfully evident in its logic. We are either on the road to the Kingdom, or to eternal death; from God's perspective. We may not see the issues of life that clearly; we may not see our direction as clearly as God does.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I command you this day to love Yahweh your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments, His statutes and His ordinances, that you may live and multiply, and that Yahweh your God may bless you in the land where you go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“If you love me you will keep my commandments” (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:23'>Joh 14:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>) reflects a major identical theme in <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:3-4'>Deu 13:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>. Moses at the end of his life, when he spoke Deuteronomy, was very much the image of the future Lord Jesus. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God is His word (<em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>); to love God is to love His word. If we love Christ, we will keep His words (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>). This is evidently alluding to the many Old Testament passages which say that Israel's love for God would be shown through their keeping of His commands (<em><a href='B:20 20:6'>Exo 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a></em>). Israel were also told that God's commands were all related to showing love (<em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>). So there is a logical circuit here: We love God by keeping His commands, the essence of which is love of people, therefore His commands are fundamentally about love. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law of God; both under the Old and New covenants (<em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if your heart turns away and you will not hear, but shall be drawn away and worship other gods and serve them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The heart that <em>turns away</em> from God by free choice then becomes <em>drawn away</em> by other forces. Time and again, Moses speaks of the state of their heart. He warns them against allowing a bad state of heart to develop, he speaks often of how apostasy starts in the heart. Moses makes a total of 49 references to the heart / mind of Israel in Deuteronomy, compared to only 13 in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This indicates the paramount importance which our Lord attaches to the state of our mind. This was perhaps his greatest wish as He faced death; that we should develop a spiritual mind and thereby manifest the Father and come to salvation. Moses likewise saw the state of our mind as the key to spiritual success. But do we share this perspective? Do we guard our minds against the media and influence of a mind-corrupting world? It's been observed that the phrase "The God of (somebody)", or similar, occurs 614 times in the Old Testament, of which 306 are in Deuteronomy. Our very personal relationship with God was therefore something else which Moses came to grasp in his spiritual maturity. Statistical analysis of the word "love" in the Pentateuch likewise reveals that "love" was a great theme of Moses at the end of his life (Moses uses it 16 times in Deuteronomy, and only four times in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I declare to you this day, that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land, where you pass over the Jordan to go in to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses pleaded with them to see that "this day... this day... this day" he set before them life and death, forgiveness or salvation (<em><a href='B:50 30:15-19'>Deu 30:15-19</a></em>). The Lord Jesus had His mind on this when He told the thief with the same emphasis that "this day" He could tell them that he would be saved, not condemned (<em><a href='B:490 23:46'>Luk 23:46</a></em>). He felt like Moses, but greater than Moses, in that He not only set before men the choice, but could grant them the salvation they sought. The fact Israel did prolong their days for some centuries in the land, despite their disobedience, is therefore a reflection of God's great patience with them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Finely aware of the seriousness of our relationship with God, Moses pleads with Israel to "choose life", not with the passivity which may appear from our armchair reading of passages like <em><a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a></em>. I wonder if he wasn’t screaming this to them, breaking down in the climax of logic and passion which resulted in that appeal. Yet he knew that the majority of Israel would not choose life. When he appeals to them to choose obedience he is therefore thinking of the minority who would&nbsp; respond. Yet he knew that the majority of Israel would not choose life. When he appeals to them to choose obedience he is therefore thinking of the minority who would respond. Our Lord Jesus, with his knowledge of human nature, must have sensed that so many of those called into his new covenant would also turn away; He must have known that only a minority of Israel would choose the life which He offered. Yet like Moses He doubtless concentrated his thoughts on the minority who would respond. Moses spoke Deuteronomy without notes. It was no set piece address. All these things were in his heart; their proneness to failure, the coming of judgment for sin, his knowledge of their future apostasy. Enter into the <em>passion</em> of it all. The man who was willing to give his eternal life for them, about to die for the sake of their provocation- singing a final song to them, giving a final speech, which showed that he knew perfectly well that they would turn away from what he was trying to do for them, and therefore the majority of them would not be saved.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Blessing" is parallel with "life", and eternal life may ultimately be in view in Moses' mind. The connection between blessing and forgiveness / salvation is widespread throughout Scripture: <em><a href='B:50 33:23'>Deu 33:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 5:12'>Psa 5:12</a></em> (blessing = grace) <em><a href='B:50 30:19'>Deu 30:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 3:8'>Psa 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 24:5'>Psa 24:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 28:9'>Psa 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 133:3'>Psa 133:3</a></em> (= salvation); <em><a href='B:20 12:32'>Exo 12:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:29'>Exo 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:1'>Num 24:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 21:3'>2Sa 21:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 67:1'>Psa 67:1</a></em> (cp. context); <em><a href='B:490 6:28'>Luk 6:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 4:7-8'>Rom 4:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> (= forgiveness). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Love Yahweh your God, to obey His voice and to cling to Him; for He is your life and the length of your days, that you may dwell in the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, to give them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh was to be loved with all the heart, soul and mind (<em><a href='B:50 6:5'>Deu 6:5</a></em>). This is understood by Joshua as meaning that those who loved Yahweh would not "mix with" and intermarry with the nations and accept their gods (<em><a href='B:60 23:11-12'>Jos 23:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:16'>Jos 23:16</a></em>). "Love" for God was not therefore a feeling; Joshua said that they must "take good heed therefore to yourselves, that you love Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:60 23:11'>Jos 23:11</a></em>). This is the love of conscious direction of the mind, the love which is a choice rather than an emotion.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Cling" is "cleave". The idea of 'cleaving' to God is a big theme of Moses in Deuteronomy (<em><a href='B:50 4:4'>Deu 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 13:17'>Deu 13:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:21'>Deu 28:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:60'>Deu 28:60</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>); the only other time Moses uses the word in his writings is in <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>, concerning a man cleaving to his wife. Moses seems to have been suggesting to Israel that their covenant relationship with God meant they were <em>marrying God</em>. This was a real paradigm breaker. We may be used to such things. But against the theological background of the time, not to say the generally low level of spirituality among Israel, this was a shocking idea. It reflected the heights to which Moses had risen.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord’s common Upper Room theme of ‘abiding’ in Him uses the same word as Moses used in the LXX when exhorting his people to ‘cleave unto’ God (<em><a href='B:50 10:20'>Deu 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>). This abiding involved loving God and keeping His commandments- all ideas which occur together in <em><a href='B:50 13:4'>Deu 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And Moses finished speaking all these words".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am one hundred and twenty years old this day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He died on his birthday. His life so clearly splits up into three periods of 40 years; the 40 years leading sheep around Sinai clearly prepared him for 40 years leading Israel. We too can look back on life and see how clearly God had arranged things.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I can no more go out and come in, and Yahweh has said to me, ‘You shall not go over this Jordan’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>. We note that he makes no reference to the reason why he couldn't enter the land. He makes his age an excuse for not entering the land, but we read later that his natural strength was not at all abated. Even in his great spiritual maturity, even Moses maybe found it hard to accept personal sin and consequences for it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh your God, He will go over before you. He will destroy these nations from before you and you shall dispossess them. Joshua shall go over before you, as Yahweh has spoken-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 1:36'>Deu 1:36</a></em>. Moses recalled how God had said to him "The LORD thy God He will go over before thee", and then said to Joshua "be strong and of a good courage, fear not nor be afraid of them: for the LORD<em> thy</em> God (the same Angel called 'the LORD thy God' in&nbsp; relation to Moses), He it is that doth go with thee; He will not fail thee nor forsake thee" (<em><a href='B:50 31:3'>Deu 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a></em>). These words are quoted in <em><a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a></em>, and it is good to note the original Angelic context in which the words were used: "Be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I (the Angel) will never leave thee nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord (i. e. the Angel) is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me". Later on we see that Joshua did conceive of God in terms of the Angel- he took Moses' exhortation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At Moses' death, the positive thrust of his closing exhortation was his conviction that the Angel of His presence which had been with them so far would continue to be so, to enable them to enter the land. This alone shows the great part that the Angel played in Moses' life. "The Lord thy God, He will go over before thee. . . and Joshua shall go over before thee. . . and Joshua shall go over before thee (showing Moses' belief that Joshua would work with the Angel- cp. <em><a href='B:230 91:1-16'>Psa 91:1-16</a></em>, where Moses commends Joshua for keeping close to the Angel in the tabernacle). . . Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God (the Angel God of Israel), He it is that doth go with thee, He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee" (<em><a href='B:50 31:3-6'>Deu 31:3-6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will do to them as He did to Sihon and to Og, the kings of the Amorites and to their land, whom He destroyed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The victories over Sihon and Og were intended as foretastes and assurances of the Kingdom, and we have the same in our lives.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will deliver them up before you and you shall do to them according to all the commandments which I have commanded you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The truth was that they were not obedient to the commandments. Their entry to the land was predicated upon their obedience, but they were disobedient. So they entered the land by grace, and that experience was intended to elicit their obedience. Divine commandment is likewise for us a way or channel to express our gratitude for salvation by grace rather than a requirement in order to attain salvation by our works.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Be strong and courageous, don’t be afraid nor be scared of them, for Yahweh your God, He it is who goes with you. He will not fail you nor forsake you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on 31:17; <em><a href='B:60 1:6'>Jos 1:6</a></em>. <em><a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em> say that despite the sins Israel may commit, their Angel-God "will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant... He will not fail thee". But then <em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em> says that because the people would disobey Him, God "will forsake them... and they shall be devoured... and I will surely hide My face in&nbsp; that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought". We have seen that in the Pentateuch, especially in God's dealings with Israel on their journey, God&nbsp; is&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; conceived of as an Angel; which would explain the apparent fickleness shown here.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses called to Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel, Be strong and courageous, for you shall go with this people into the land which Yahweh has sworn to their fathers to give them, and you shall cause them to inherit it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Cause them to inherit it" could imply that their inheritance was still conditional. For the inheritance was predicated upon their obedience, and they were disobedient. So they would only enter it thanks to Joshua / Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is Yahweh who goes before you. He will be with you. He will not fail you neither forsake you. Don’t be afraid neither be dismayed-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note that the promise of Moses that God would not fail nor forsake Joshua, but would be with him (<em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>) was similar to the very promise given to Moses which he had earlier doubted (<em><a href='B:20 3:12'>Exo 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:12'>Exo 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:15'>Exo 4:15</a></em>). Such exhortation is so much the stronger from someone who has themselves doubted and then come to believe.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, who bore the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, and to all the elders of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The word of his God was in his heart, as he stood there before Israel, that people whom he loved, those for whom he wished to make atonement with his own life, even his eternal life. " Yea, he loved the people" is the Spirit's comment (<em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em> - the " he" in the context seems to be Moses). It could only be the Spirit which would write so concisely. " Yea, he loved the people....they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words" . This is God's comment on that last meeting between Moses and Israel. And then he pours out his heart to them, he reels off what we have as the book of Deuteronomy (it takes about four hours to read it through loud), writes a copy of the Law (31:9; notice how <em><a href='B:50 24:1-22'>Deu 24:1-22</a></em> was <em>written</em> by Moses, <em><a href='B:480 10:5'>Mar 10:5</a></em>), sings a Song to that silent multitude (surely with a lump in his throat, especially at points like 32:15), and then he turns and climbs the mountain to see the land and meet his death. The fact it all happened on his birthday just adds to the pathos of it all (<em><a href='B:50 31:2'>Deu 31:2</a></em>). The huge amount of work which he did on that last day of his life looks forward to the Lord's huge achievement in the day of his death. No wonder Yahweh describes that day of Moses' death with an intensive plural: "The days (i.e. the one great time / day) approach (s.w. "at hand", "made ready") that thou must die" (<em><a href='B:50 31:14'>Deu 31:14</a></em>). It seems that he said much of the book in one day; hence his repeated mention of the phrase " this day" throughout the book. The people were often reminded that they were about to “go over (Jordan) to possess” the land (<em><a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:11'>Deu 11:11</a></em> RV), as if they were on the banks of Jordan almost. In reality that speech of Deuteronomy was the outpouring of his heart, pleading with Israel to be faithful to the covenant, encouraging them to be aware of their weakness,&nbsp; encouraging them to go forward and inherit the Kingdom. Not only do we have a powerful type of the Lord Jesus in all this; Israel assembled before him really do represent us. <em><a href='B:50 32:36'>Deu 32:36</a></em> (" the Lord shall judge his people" ) is quoted in <em><a href='B:650 10:20'>Heb 10:20</a></em> as relevant to all of us. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses commanded them saying, At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of release, in the feast of tents- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "After seven years" may suggest this refers to a special ceremony to be performed seven years after they had entered Canaan, when all the land was intended to be subdued before them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>when all Israel has come to appear before Yahweh your God in the place which He shall choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the frequent references to Yahweh choosing a specific geographical location for the sanctuary. This apparently was not fulfilled, for the ark moved around a lot. This was a tacit reflection of Israel's disobedience, and of how the inheritance of the Kingdom was to be reinterpreted and rescheduled until the last days. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Assemble the people, men, women and the little ones and your foreigner who is within your gates, that they may hear and that they may learn to fear Yahweh your God and observe to do all the words of this law- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>All Israel were envisaged as attending this ceremony; but as noted on :11, it never happened. The "foreigner" could refer to the members of the "mixed multitude" amongst them, or may reflect Yahweh's hope that some like Rahab and the Gibeonites would accept covenant relationship with Yahweh rather than having to be destroyed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and that their children, who have not known, may hear and learn to fear Yahweh your God as long as you live in the land where you go over the Jordan to possess it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that fearing Yahweh would lead to their living long in the land. But they didn't fear Yahweh. The fact Israel did prolong their days for some centuries in the land, despite their disobedience, is therefore a reflection of God's great patience with them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Behold, your life will end shortly. Call Joshua and present yourselves in the Tent of Meeting, so that I may commission him. Moses and Joshua went and presented themselves in the Tent of Meeting-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 31:9'>Deu 31:9</a></em>. Yahweh said that He would give Joshua a charge; but Moses gave Joshua the charge (<em><a href='B:50 31:14'>Deu 31:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a></em>). God was so strongly manifested in Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh appeared in the Tent in a pillar of cloud. The pillar of cloud stood over the door of the Tent- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "And the Lord descended in a cloud", as if the theophany of Sinai was now repeated. The Angel in the pillar of cloud shone forth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Behold, you shall lay down to sleep with your fathers, and this people shall rise up and play the prostitute after the strange gods of the land where they go to be among them, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:50 34:6'>Deu 34:6</a></em>. A few hours before the death of Moses, he had been telling Israel: "While I am yet alive with you this day (for a few more hours), ye have been rebellious against Yahweh; and how much more after my death?" (<em><a href='B:50 31:27'>Deu 31:27</a></em>). Earlier that same day the Angel had told him: "Thou shalt <em>lie down </em>(mg.) with thy fathers (cp. the Angel lying him down in the grave)... and this people will <em>rise up </em>(i.e. immediately after his death), and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land" (<em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>). No wonder this was ringing in Moses' ears as he came to his death. Yet he triumphed in the fact that a minority would not give way. <em>His very last words</em> were a confident exaltation that ultimately Israel would overcome their temptations, the influence and idols of the surrounding world. But he knew that the majority of them would spiritually fall because of these things. Therefore he was looking forward to the minority in Israel who would gloriously overcome, who would come to the Kingdom, the land of corn and wine, when the heavens would drop dew. This is clearly the language of <em><a href='B:230 72:1-20'>Psa 72:1-20</a></em> and Isaiah about the future Kingdom. Moses met death with the vision of the faithful minority in the Kingdom, in the promised land, having overcome all their besetting temptations. And the Lord Jesus died with exactly that same vision (<em><a href='B:230 22:22-31'>Psa 22:22-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:30-36'>Psa 69:30-36</a></em>).&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then My anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and I will hide My face from them and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall come on them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Haven’t these evils come on us because our God is not among us?’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was envisaged as happening in the next generation (:16). But the tragedy was that for all their sufferings, Israel generally didn't come to this realization, and will only fully do so in the last days. So we see here God's desperate hope for them, a hope which was a reflection of His love.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will surely hide My face in that day for all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These words were spoken by the Angel in the pillar of cloud whose face was now shining forth (:15). The idea practically may be that the shekinah glory would no longer be seen in the tabernacle. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore write this song for yourselves and teach it to the children of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In illiterate society, songs were the usual way to remember beliefs and history and keep them alive. It was God's intention that His people would sing this to themselves, ever reminding themselves of His grace and purpose with them, and of their likelihood to waste it all by falling away.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For when I have brought them into the land which I swore to their fathers, flowing with milk and honey, and they have eaten and filled themselves and grown fat, then they will turn to other gods and serve them, and despise Me and break My covenant- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They carried the idols and tabernacle of false gods with them through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). So it was grace indeed to speak in terms of their future apostacy and acceptance of other gods. Israel came to describe the Egypt they had been called out from as the land flowing with milk and honey (<em><a href='B:40 16:12'>Num 16:12</a></em>), and denied that the Kingdom was in fact like that. And so we have the same tendency to be deceived into thinking that the kingdoms of this world, the world around us, is effectively the Kingdom of God, the only thing worth striving after.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When many evils and troubles have come on them, this song shall testify before them as a witness, for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed; for I know their imagination which they plan this day, before I have brought them into the land which I swore- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Seeing they had the idols already with them (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>), it was clear that they intended to use them in Canaan. God knew their hearts, and realized this was "their imagination". Constantly we see God's focus upon the state of the heart. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Moses wrote this song the same day and taught it to the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the continual emphasis upon "the same day" and "this day..." throughout Deuteronomy. A fair case could be made that all this happened on the last day of Moses' life; an intense final day of a very busy life. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He commissioned Joshua the son of Nun and said, Be strong and courageous, for you shall bring the children of Israel into the land which I swore to them, and I will be with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I will be with you" surely refers to God, but Moses at the end of his life was totally identified with God, and spoke personally on His behalf.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em> is perhaps the clearest basis for the words of <em><a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a></em>. This describes how Moses "reared up" the tabernacle, representing us (<em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>); "So Moses finished the work" God had given him to do. <em><a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a></em> likewise speaks of Moses finishing the work. The Hebrew for "reared up" is also used in the context of resurrection and glorification / exaltation. As our Lord sensed His final, ultimate achievement of the Father's glory in His own character, He could look ahead to our resurrection and glorification. He adopted God's timeless perspective, and died with the vision of our certain glorification in the Kingdom. This fits in with the way <em><a href='B:230 22:1-31'>Psa 22:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 69:1-36'>Psa 69:1-36</a></em> (which evidently portray the thoughts of our dying Lord) conclude with visions of Christ's "seed" being glorified in the Kingdom. There are a number of passages which also speak of the temple (also representative of the ecclesia) being a <em>work </em>which was <em>finished </em>(e.g. <em><a href='B:140 5:1'>2Ch 5:1</a></em>). In His moment of agonized triumph as He died, the Lord Jesus saw us as if we were perfect. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“It is finished" has some connection with the Lord loving His people “to the very end" (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em> - <em>eis telos</em>). To the end or completion of what? Surely the Lord held in mind Moses’ last speech before he died. Then, “Moses had finished writing all the words of this Law in a book, even to the very end (LXX <em>eis telos</em>)" (<em><a href='B:50 31:24'>Deu 31:24</a></em>). It was Moses’ law which was finished / completed when the Lord finally died. Again we marvel at the Lord’s intellectual consciousness even in His death throes. The fact He had completed the Law was upmost in His mind. This alone should underline the importance of never going back to reliance upon that Law, be it in Sabbath keeping or general legalism of attitude. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>he commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of Yahweh saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Presumably to the Kohathites (<em><a href='B:40 4:4-5'>Num 4:4-5</a></em>) who carried the ark; but only the priests could touch it, so perhaps they are in view here, as the ark had to be touched in order to fix the scroll of the law to the side of it (:26). The priests often carried the ark (<em><a href='B:60 3:3'>Jos 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:9-10'>Jos 4:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:6'>Jos 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:33'>Jos 8:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:3'>1Ki 8:3</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for a witness against you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may have been the book of the law which was found in Jeremiah's time, having become detached from the ark.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I know your rebellion and your stiff neck; even while I am alive with you this day you have been rebellious against Yahweh, and how much more after my death?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although the people were "stiff-necked", refusing to bow their necks in obedience, and thereby liable to destruction if God was amongst them (<em><a href='B:20 32:9'>Exo 32:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:15'>Exo 33:15</a></em>), God was willing to give this stiff-necked people a place in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:50 9:6'>Deu 9:6</a></em>). And so although God had said that He would not go in the midst of a stiff-necked people, yet Moses asks Him to do so (<em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>)- for He senses God's desire to save them by grace despite their hardened disobedience.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to witness against them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was specifically Moses' song which called heaven and earth to witness (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). Perhaps the idea was that "earth" was witness in that a copy of the law or the song was to be placed by the ark; and God in heaven was witness too.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you, and evil will happen to you in the latter days, because you will do that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God can be grieved (s.w. 'provoke to anger'). He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses spoke in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication would be that the song was Divinely inspired, it came to him and he spoke or sung it to them until the revelation had finished. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Give ear, you heavens, and I will speak. Let the earth hear the words of my mouth- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The echoes of Deuteronomy in the Lord’s goodbye speeches shouldn’t be missed; for Moses at this time truly was a superb type of the Lord Jesus. Deuteronomy concludes with two songs of Moses, one addressed to the Father (<em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>), and the other to his people (<em><a href='B:50 33:1-29'>Deu 33:1-29</a></em>). It is apparent that the Lord’s final prayer in <em><a href='B:500 17:1-26'>Joh 17:1-26</a></em> is divisible into the same two divisions- prayer to the Father, and concern for His people. It has been observed that the prayer of <em><a href='B:500 17:1-26'>Joh 17:1-26</a></em> is also almost like a hymn- divided into seven strophes of eight lines each. It would appear to be John’s equivalent to the record in <em><a href='B:480 14:26'>Mar 14:26</a></em> of a hymn being sung at the end of the Last Supper. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lives of both Moses and the Lord ended with a farewell discourse and prayer. Not only do the words of the Lord consciously allude to Moses’ words in Deuteronomy, but John’s comments do likewise. John’s comment that “Jesus knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world…” (<em><a href='B:500 13:1'>Joh 13:1</a></em>) is without any doubt referring to the well known (at the time he was writing) Jerusalem Targum on <em><a href='B:50 32:1-52'>Deu 32:1-52</a></em>: “And when the last end of Moses the prophet was at hand, that he should be gathered from the world…”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Significantly, the Pentateuch begins with the account of the creation of “heaven and earth” and concludes with Moses appealing to the “heavens and earth” of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em>). This is not to say that <em><a href='B:10 1:1-31'>Gen 1:1-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 2:1-25'>Gen 2:1-25</a></em> <em>only</em> recount the creation of Israel; but it was probably understood by early readers and hearers as God’s account of the creation of the land on which Israel found themselves living. For an observer on the earth / land of Israel, the impression is given that the whole of creation came into existence on account of Israel. The stars etc. came into existence to give light on the earth / land of Israel; just as in the new creation, all things likewise “are” for <em>our </em>sakes, even if the rest of the world benefits too. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Let’s remember that under inspiration, Moses wrote Genesis, presumably during the 40 years wandering. He therefore wrote it in a context- of explaining things to Israel as they stumbled through that wilderness, wondering who they were, where they came from, where they were headed. This explains why there are so many links within the Pentateuch- e.g. the Spirit “flutters” over the waters in <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>, just as God like an eagle (a symbol of the Spirit) “flutters” over Israel in bringing about their creation as a nation (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). The point is that what God did at creation, He can do at any time. As He made the waters “swarm” in <em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em>, so He made the waters of the Nile “swarm” with frogs (<em><a href='B:20 8:3'>Exo 8:3</a></em>) in order to save His people from a no-hope, chaotic, disordered, hopeless situation. The command to subject the animals in Eden (the land promised to Abraham?) corresponds to later commands to subject the tribes living in the land (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em> = <em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a></em>). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall condense as the dew, as the small rain on the tender grass, as the showers on the herb- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reads in LXX as a commandment to accept the teaching of Moses in this song: "Let my speech be looked for as the rain, and my words come down as dew". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I will proclaim the name of Yahweh. Ascribe greatness to our God-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>. Moses is asking them to glorify God as he had done, inviting them to make his life path that of every Israelite: "For <em>I</em> have called on the name of the Lord: assign <em>ye</em> greatness to our God" (LXX). Yet Israel came to glorify Moses as a person, as religious people do, without seeing the reality of this invitation to be like Moses personally. Paul grasped this, and says that we each with unveiled face have seen a greater glory than Moses saw; thus inviting us to be like Moses but to see even far greater glory (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Proclaim the Name" (<em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:5'>Exo 34:5</a></em>) is the same phrase used about 'calling upon the Name' (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a></em>). The calling out / proclamation of Yahweh's Name, in the Gospel and ultimately in the declaration of the Name on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), elicits a desire to call that Name upon us, which we initially do through baptism into that Name. And like Moses, we in turn proclaim the Name to others (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> s.w.).&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"I have proclaimed the name of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> LXX) was surely in Christ's mind in His goodbye prayer of <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>; and those words are in the context of Moses' song, which roundly exposed Israel's future apostacy. The character, the fundamental personality of God, is declared through appreciating human weakness and apostacy. Christ's words of <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em> were likewise in the context of revealing apostacy and future weakness. Thus through recognition of sin we come to know God; this is the fundamental message of Ezekiel and other prophets. Through knowing our own sinfulness we know the righteousness of God, and vice versa. Thus properly beholding the righteousness of God as displayed on the cross ought to convict us of our sinfulness, as it did the people who saw it in real life (they "smote upon their breasts" in repentance, cp. <em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em>).&nbsp; As Christ declared God's Name just before His death (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>), so did Moses (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> LXX).&nbsp; Moses saw at the end of his life that there was no third way: it was either complete dedication and salvation, or rebellion and condemnation. See on <em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em>.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord told the Father that He had given the disciples His words, “and they have received them” (<em><a href='B:500 17:8'>Joh 17:8</a></em>). This is evident allusion to the editorial comment in <em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em> about how all Israel received God’s words through Moses. Likewise “I manifested Your name… they have kept Your word” (<em><a href='B:500 17:6'>Joh 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>) = “I will proclaim the name of the Lord… they have observed thy word” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a></em>). One marvels at the way the Lord’s mind linked together so much Scripture in the artless, seamless way in which He did. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus fed off the majesty of the Name of Yahweh (<em><a href='B:400 5:4'>Mic 5:4</a></em>)- this was how inspirational He found the things of the Name. To fear the Name of Yahweh was to “observe to do all the words of this law” (<em><a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a></em>). Meditation and sustained reflection upon the characteristics of God as epitomized and memorialized in His Name will of itself lead to a conformation of personality to that same Name. If we declare that Name to others, they too have the chance to be transformed by it- thus Moses comments: “Because <em>I </em>will publish the name of the Lord, ascribe <em>ye</em> greatness unto our God” (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We in our turn are to manifest God's Name by outgoing witness; so many of the Psalms were written in order to do just that. Moses 'proclaimed the name of Yahweh' (<em><a href='B:50 32:3'>Deu 32:3</a></em> RV)- just as the Angel had proclaimed the Name to Moses in <em><a href='B:20 34:1-35'>Exo 34:1-35</a></em>. In perceiving God's Name we are seeing something which cannot be kept to ourselves; God's personality of itself bids us proclaim it. And Moses goes on in the same verse to urge Israel to do as he was doing: "Ascribe <em>ye</em> greatness unto our God".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the Rock; His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is He-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's final address to His people before His death was based upon these last words of Moses. “Holy Father… righteous Father” (<em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>) was a form of address which the Lord had in a sense lifted from Moses when he addresses God as “righteous and holy” (<em><a href='B:50 32:4'>Deu 32:4</a></em> LXX).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They have dealt corruptly with Him; they are not His children any more because of their blemish. They are a perverse and crooked generation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses is saying that his prophesy that they would "corrupt themselves" would indeed come true (<em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>). <em><a href='B:50 4:16'>Deu 4:16</a></em> says that this corruption with or of Yahweh would be through idolatry and making images. It is man who is made in the form / image / likeness of God (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>). Our emphasis must be upon replicating God's thinking in ourselves, making ourselves after His image and likeness. Rather than seeking to worship a physical image of Him in the form of an idol or animal. To do so is to corrupt both Him and the humanity which He intends to be in His image and likeness.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "Their spot is not the spot of His children" effectively refers to this corruption of Yahweh's image. But there is specific allusion to the marks which idolaters placed on their bodies and foreheads; given specific latter day significance in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:20:4'>Rev 20:4</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This description of Israel is quoted about the world in <em>Php_2:15</em>. If God’s people worship this world’s idols, then they are counted by God as the world. "Corrupted" is s.w. "'destroyed" or "perish". All judgment is finally self inflicted. Sin is its own judgment; hence the Hebrew word for "corruption" also means "destruction", for moral corruption is its own destruction. God Himself does judge, but always prefers men to judge themselves. Apostate Israel are spoken of as the pagan world; and therefore at the day of judgment the rejected of the new Israel will be condemned along with the world (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>); assigned their portion “with the unbelievers” (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em>). </p>


