# commentaries

text:
<p><em>You shall make judges and officers in all your gates which Yahweh your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment-</em></p><p>This was specifically obeyed in <em><a href='B:140 19:7'>2Ch 19:7</a></em>, because the previous system had been open to "respect of persons" and bribes. This was in distinction to how the judgment was done as in most primitive societies, by the heads of families. But that was bound to be open to "respect of persons" and bribes. Therefore nepotism was to e outlawed by the appointment of a judiciary. </p>


text:
<p><em>You must not twist justice, you must not respect persons, neither must you take a bribe; for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous- </em></p><p>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><em>You must follow that which is altogether just- </em></p><p>Heb. "justice, justice". In the days before underlining or italic print, emphasis was achieved by repeating a word twice- e.g. "Justice, justice" (<em><a href='B:50 16:20'>Deu 16:20</a></em>); "Comfort, comfort" (<em><a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a></em>). It has been pointed out that only one of the ten commandments is repeated twice: "You shall not covet". This sober emphasis upon not coveting was surely a reflection of how God perceived the huge danger of His people seeking to 'possess' things as theirs. </p><p><em>That you may live, and inherit the land which Yahweh your God gives you-</em></p><p>The Pharisees had the “key of knowledge” that enabled men to reach the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:490 11:52'>Luk 11:52</a></em>); but they took it away from men, and thus stopped them entering (<em><a href='B:470 23:13'>Mat 23:13</a></em>). Likewise if the elders / judges of Israel had been wise, the entire people would have entered the land. </p><p>"Drive out" is s.w. "possess / inherit". 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><em>You must not plant for yourselves an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of Yahweh your God, which you shall make for yourselves-</em></p><p>Moses adds a whole series of apparently 'minor' commands which were designed to make obedience easier to the others already given. Thus he tells them in Deuteronomy not to plant a grove of trees near the altar of God - because he knew this would provoke the possibility of mixing Yahweh worship with that of the surrounding world (<em><a href='B:50 16:21'>Deu 16:21</a></em>). There was to be no possibility of worshipping idols in the name of Yahweh worship; there was not even to be the possibility of some subliminal suggestion of it arising from having a grove of trees near an altar. Likewise he commands any future king not to send God's people to Egypt to buy horses because he could see that this would tempt them to go back to Egypt permanently (<em><a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a></em>). There are many other example of this kind of thing (<em><a href='B:50 14:24'>Deu 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:18'>Deu 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:17-19'>Deu 17:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:9'>Deu 18:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:7-8'>Deu 20:7-8</a></em>). The point is that Moses had thought long and hard about the ways in which Israel would be tempted to sin, and his words and innermost desire were devoted to helping them overcome. Glorious ditto for the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p><em>Neither shall you set yourself up a pillar, which Yahweh your God hates-</em></p><p>Again, there was not even to be the possibility of some subliminal suggestion toward idol worship. The setting up of pillars as memorials was done even by Jacob, but clearly there was a hint of idolatry in them, and now they were forbidden. We likewise need to avoid all subliminal suggestions toward sin from our lives.</p>


text:
<p><em>You must not sacrifice to Yahweh your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish or anything imperfect, for that is an abomination to Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms. </p>


text:
<p><em>If there is found in the midst of you, within any of your gates which Yahweh your God gives you, a man or woman who does that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God in transgressing His covenant- </em></p><p>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><em>and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the army of the sky, which I have not commanded- </em></p><p>Moses told Israel this when they had carried the star of Remphan and the tabernacle of Moloch through the wilderness, and had taken the idols of Egypt with them (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>). Joshua had to appeal to that generation to put away their idols. We see here how Moses was talking on one level, but the people were completely on another. </p>


text:
<p><em>and it is told you and you have heard of it, then you must inquire diligently- </em></p><p>Reports of wrong doing cannot all, therefore, be shrugged off as gossip which we don't want to hear. That can be a lazy response. The far harder response is to do as asked here, to "inquire diligently" and establish facts. </p><p><em>Behold, if it is true and certain that such abomination is done in Israel-</em></p><p>Moses knew that such idolatry was ongoing in Israel as he spoke. But it is left an open question as to why he did nothing further than lament it at the end of Deuteronomy. Perhaps he reflected God's great enthusiasm for Israel at this time, for He did not behold iniquity in Jacob (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>), and presents Himself in Jeremiah as having fallen totally in love with Israel in the wilderness, wishing not to see their unfaithfulness.</p>


text:
<p><em>then you must bring forth that man or that woman who has done this evil thing to your gates, even the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death with stones- </em></p><p>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. 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><em>At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he who is to die be put to death. At the mouth of one witness he must not be put to death-</em></p><p>Insisting on more than one witness before accepting the truth of an allegation meant that gossip and slander were limited; and Jesus applies this principle to dealing with disputes within His church (<em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em>). Although His teaching about not condemning our brethren meant that He didn't advocate as it were 'putting to death', but rather stern rebuke and damage limitation. Those who served other gods had to die on the testimony of two or three witnesses. This idea is twice alluded to in the New Testament in the context of making the decision to cease fellowship with someone (<em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:1'>2Co 13:1</a></em>). The implication is that death under the Old Covenant pointed forward to first century church discipline under the New Covenant. But we must note that the reason for this was serving other gods and wilful departing from covenant relationship with the Lord- not minor reasons.</p>


text:
<p><em>The hand of the witnesses must be first on him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from the midst of you- </em></p><p>There is stress upon close family members were to be the first to slay apostate members whose apostacy they had reported (<em><a href='B:50 13:9'>Deu 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:7'>Deu 17:7</a></em>). They were being taught that they had to love God far more than family, and the Lord Jesus continued this teaching (<em><a href='B:470 10:37'>Mat 10:37</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>If there arises a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within your gates, then go up to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose-</em></p><p>Judging between "blood and blood" may refer to judging whether between murder and manslaughter. The sanctuary was intended to be a point of national focus, and this reflects God's great interest in unity amongst His people. But God never stated that He had chosen a place in Israel, at least not (arguably) until the time of David. Israel were simply not responsive enough to enable all His intended plans to come about, and therefore so much of the law was not possible of complete fulfilment as intended.</p>


text:
<p><em>and come to the priests the Levites and to the judge who shall be in those days and ask. They shall show you the sentence of judgment-</em></p><p>David and Solomon appear to have concentrated all judgment in themselves, setting themselves up effectively as both king and priest, for the "judge" was to be a priest. Jehoshaphat reformed this by placing the power of judgment in the hands of a group of Levites, priests and heads of families as the higher court in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:140 19:5-8'>2Ch 19:5-8</a></em>). But still Jehoshaphat didn't appoint a singular senior judge, as required in <em><a href='B:50 17:9'>Deu 17:9</a></em>. We note from <em><a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a></em> that this singular priestly supreme judge is called "Yahweh", because he was to be Yahweh's supreme representative when it came to judgment. But it seems even the best kings of Judah preferred to keep that office in their own power. </p>


text:
<p><em>You must do according to the sentence which they shall show you from that place which Yahweh shall choose, and you must observe to do according to all that they shall teach you- </em></p><p>LXX "And thou shalt act according to the thing which they shall report to thee out of the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt observe to do all whatsoever shall have been by law appointed to thee". The idea may be that their judgment was based upon God's law, but they would ask Him for wisdom as to how to interpret it, and they in turn would "report" that in making judgments. And yet it seems that the priesthood failed to be just judges, as the prophets very often lament the corrupt judiciary in the same context as complaining of a corrupt priesthood. They didn't judge according to God's revealed word, nor seek His guidance; but judged according to their own vested interests. Just as we can today. </p>


text:
<p><em>according to the law which they shall teach you and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, that you shall do. You must not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you- </em></p><p>The system of judges proposed by Jethro didn't really work, because Moses again felt the burden was too great for him (see on <em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>), and so the 70 Spirit filled elders were appointed (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>). But this too didn't really work; because in <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em> we seem to read of the priests effectively being the judges, under the direct control of Moses and Aaron. The simple truth was that there was hardly a wise man amongst them. </p><p><em>To the right hand or to the left- </em></p><p>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>


text:
<p><em>The man who does presumptuously in not listening to the priest who stands to minister there before Yahweh your God, or to the judge, that man shall die, and you must put away the evil from Israel-</em></p><p>“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><em>All the people shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously-</em></p><p>David however did act presumptuously, and yet lived- by grace. <em><a href='B:100 12:9'>2Sa 12:9</a></em> says that he "despised the word of Yahweh". Indeed, David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord... you despised me" (<em><a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a></em>). David learnt that his attitude to God's word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. The fact that he is condemned for having "despised the commandment of the Lord" in his sin with Bathsheba indicates that David knew all along what God's will really was. The fact that the flesh took over does not in any way mitigate his responsibility in this. This is a direct quote from the Law's definition of the sin of presumption: "The soul that does anything presumptuously... because he has despised the word of the Lord... that soul shall utterly be cut off" (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em>). Knowing David’s emotional nature and also the fact that he did not completely turn away from God afterwards, we would have expected a quicker repentance if it had been a passing sin of passion. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that the sin was of presumption rather than passion. In his prosperity he had said “I shall never be moved” and he was determined that he couldn’t be (<em><a href='B:230 30:6'>Psa 30:6</a></em>). Hearing those words from Nathan must have struck real fear into David- he was being incriminated for the supreme sin of presumption, for which there was no provision of sacrifice or repentance. It is a mark of his faith and knowledge of God as the God of love, that He is willing to go on to confess his sin, in the hope of forgiveness. "You desire not sacrifice; else would I give it" (<em><a href='B:230 51:16'>Psa 51:16</a></em>) was spoken by David more concerning this sin of presumption for which there was no sacrifice prescribed, rather than about the actual sin of adultery. However, we must not get the impression that David was a hard, callous man. Everything we know about him points to him be a big hearted, warm softie. David's sin with Bathsheba was in that sense out of character. Yet such is the stranglehold of sin that even he was forced to act with such uncharacteristic callousness and indifference to both God and man in order to try to cover his sin. </p>


text:
<p><em>When you have come to the land which Yahweh your God gives you and shall possess it, and dwell therein and say, I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me- </em></p><p>Moses often reminds them that he knows 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>). Here he shows that he knew that one day they would want a king, even though God was their king. He had such sensitivity to their weakness and likely failures, and in some areas he makes concessions to them. </p><p>"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><em>you must surely set him king over yourselves whom Yahweh your God shall choose; one from among your brothers you shall set king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother- </em></p><p>It was God's wish that Israel would not have a human king; hence His sorrow when they did (<em><a href='B:90 10:19-21'>1Sa 10:19-21</a></em>). Yet in the Law, God foresaw that they would want a human king, and so He gave commandments concerning how he should behave (<em><a href='B:50 17:14-15'>Deu 17:14-15</a></em>). These passages speak of how Israel would choose to set a King over themselves, and would do so. Yet God worked through this system of human kings; hence the Queen of Sheba speaks of how <em>God</em> had set Solomon over Israel as King, and how he was king on God's behalf (<em><a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a></em>). Israel set a king over themselves; but God worked with this, so that in a sense He set the King over them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Only he must not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, so that he may multiply horses, because Yahweh has said to you, You shall not go back that way again-</em></p><p>See on <em><a href='B:50 16:21'>Deu 16:21</a></em>. Moses commands any future king not to send God's people to Egypt to buy horses because he could see that this would tempt them to go back to Egypt permanently. There are many other example of this kind of thing (<em><a href='B:50 14:24'>Deu 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:18'>Deu 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:17-19'>Deu 17:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:9'>Deu 18:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:7-8'>Deu 20:7-8</a></em>). The point is that Moses had thought long and hard about the ways in which Israel would be tempted to sin, and his words and innermost desire were devoted to helping them overcome. Glorious ditto for the Lord Jesus whom he typified (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). Note that the king was warned not to get horses for himself from Egypt because the very act of sending Israelites back into Egypt might tempt them to return there; we are to be sensitive to the spiritual effect our actions may have upon others.</p><p>Israel were told three times that Saul would have many chariots (<em><a href='B:90 8:11-12'>1Sa 8:11-12</a></em>). If they were spiritually aware, they would have realized that by multiplying horses and chariots, he was going to be a King who ruled in studied disobedience to the Mosaic Law (<em><a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a></em>). They were given the spiritual potential to grasp this. But they were already hard bitten in their rebellion, and this potential spiritual help went unheeded (although God still gave it to them potentially, even at a time when it seemed pointless. He is so ever willing to coax His people back!).</p><p>The degree to which God wanted Israel to conceive of Him in terms of Angels is shown by carefully considering the command for Israel not to have chariots (<em><a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:290 2:7'>Isa 2:7</a></em>). As this form of transport became increasingly popular, it must have seemed as crazy as Christians being told not to possess motor cars. There must have therefore been a highly significant teaching behind it. Was the purpose of it to make Israel look to the Angel-cherubim chariots of God? The word for 'cherubim' carries the idea of a chariot; the notion of horsemen corresponds with the Angel horse riders of Zechariah and Revelation.</p><p><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.&nbsp; <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.&nbsp;</p><p>Moses adds a whole series of apparently 'minor' commands which were designed to make obedience easier to the others already given. Thus he tells them in Deuteronomy not to plant a grove of trees near the altar of God - because he knew this would provoke the possibility of mixing Yahweh worship with that of the surrounding world (<em><a href='B:50 16:21'>Deu 16:21</a></em>). Likewise he commands any future king not to send God's people to Egypt to buy horses because he could see that this would tempt them to go back to Egypt permanently (<em><a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a></em>). There are many other example of this kind of thing (<em><a href='B:50 14:24'>Deu 14:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:18'>Deu 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:17-19'>Deu 17:17-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:9'>Deu 18:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:7-8'>Deu 20:7-8</a></em>). The point is that Moses had thought long and hard about the ways in which Israel would be tempted to sin, and his words and innermost desire were devoted to helping them overcome. Glorious ditto for the Lord Jesus.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, so that his heart will not turn away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold-</em></p><p>See on <em><a href='B:50 20:14'>Deu 20:14</a></em>. This has strong relevance to Solomon.&nbsp;He did multiply silver, gold, horses and wives; his heart <em>was</em> turned away (:16,17= <em><a href='B:140 9:20'>2Ch 9:20</a></em>).&nbsp; Yet this passage says that if he studied the Law all his life, this would <em>not</em>&nbsp;happen, and also his heart would not be "lifted up above his brethren" (:20).&nbsp;Solomon's whipping of the people and sense of spiritual and material superiority (<em><a href='B:140 10:11'>2Ch 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 1:16'>Ecc 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 2:7'>Ecc 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a></em>) shows how his heart <em>was </em>lifted up. Yet Solomon knew the Law, despite his explicit disobedience to the commands concerning wives, horses etc. But his knowledge of the word didn't bring forth the true humility which it was intended to.&nbsp;Solomon <em>assumed </em>he wasn't proud;&nbsp;he <em>assumed</em> God’s word was having its intended effect upon him, when it wasn’t. Such spiritual assumption is a temptation for every child of God.&nbsp;God’s intention that the king of Israel should personally copy out all the commandments of the Law was “to the end that his heart will not <em>be raised up</em> above his brothers”- i.e. reflecting upon the many requirements of the Law would’ve convicted the King of his own failure to have been fully obedient, and therefore his heart would be humbled. And soon after this statement, we are hearing Moses reminding Israel that Messiah, the prophet like unto Moses, was to <em>be raised up</em> (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). Human failure, and recognition of it, prepares us to accept Christ. </p><p>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>


text:
<p><em>When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he must write for himself a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests, the Levites-</em></p><p>LXX "And when he shall be established in his government, then shall he write for himself this repetition of the law into a book by the hands of the priests the Levites". 'Writing for himself by the hands of the priests' could mean that as the kings were illiterate, the priests were to guide their hands in copying out the law. Perhaps "this law" refers specifically to the laws in this section warning the king. Solomon must have copied out these laws, and yet right from the time he wrote them out, he specifically disobeyed them all. Solomon was a classic example of where knowledge of God's law alone will not save anyone, unless it enters into the heart.</p>


text:
<p><em>It shall be with him and he must read from it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them- </em></p><p>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><em>Thus his heart will not be raised up above his brothers, and he will not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, so that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel- </em></p><p>The victory of the Lord Jesus is described as Him 'prolonging his days' (<em><a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a></em>), in allusion back to the way <em><a href='B:50 17:20'>Deu 17:20</a></em> teaches that the King of Israel must study the word all the days of his life, with the result that he would "prolong his days". The almost unbelievable victory of the man Christ Jesus against every aspect of the flesh was due to His saturation with the spirit of God's word.</p><p>God’s intention that the king of Israel should personally copy out all the commandments of the Law was so that “his heart be not lifted up above his brethren” (<em><a href='B:50 17:20'>Deu 17:20</a></em>)- i.e. reflecting upon the many requirements of the Law would’ve convicted the King of his own failure to have been fully obedient, and therefore his heart would be humbled. And soon after this statement, we are hearing Moses reminding Israel that Messiah, the prophet like unto Moses, was to be raised up (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). Human failure, and recognition of it, prepares us to accept Christ. To this end, God worked through Israel’s weakness, time and again. He even used it as a path towards His provision of Messiah. God wanted to speak to them directly, but in their weakness they asked that He not do this. Instead of giving up with them, as a Father whose children say they don’t want to hear His voice… instead God goes on to tell Moses: “They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren (a prophecy applied to Christ in the New Testament)… and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him” (<em><a href='B:50 18:17-18'>Deu 18:17-18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they will eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire as their inheritance-</em></p><p>There is a word play here, for "eat" is s.w. "burn up", used of fire consuming sacrifice; and "the offerings of Yahweh made by fire" is an attempt to translate just two words in Hebrew, "Yahweh's fire". The Levites' consumption of the food offered was accepted by Yahweh as if the fire of the altar had burnt it up. They were therefore as it were associated with the altar, Yahweh's representatives. </p><p>The Levites had no land nor great material wealth to leave to their children; but they had this unique relationship with God to pass on. Jeremiah in depression, having lost all he had, concludes that God is his portion (<em><a href='B:310 3:24'>Lam 3:24</a></em>), clearly alluding to this verse. Even if materially we lose all we have- our relationship with God is our true portion and inheritance, which we will eternally receive in the Kingdom. The writers of the Psalms, some of whom like David weren’t Levites, could use the same Hebrew word to describe how God was their “portion” and inheritance (<em><a href='B:230 16:5'>Psa 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 73:26'>Psa 73:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 142:5'>Psa 142:5</a></em>). This should be our self-perception, whether or not we leave any material inheritance to anyone or not. Not for us the obsession with building up ownership of property, under the excuse we want to leave something to our children. Our service of God and His people is our inheritance, which we shall eternally receive back at the resurrection and the time of the Kingdom of God on earth. The priests and Levites were provided with enough to eat, but no great wealth. So it should be for all full time servants in God’s house. By contrast, the priests of the surrounding tribes were generally more wealthy than the other people, and owned land, which was seen as especially holy (see <em><a href='B:10 47:22'>Gen 47:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall have no inheritance among their brothers; Yahweh is their inheritance, as He has spoken to them- </em></p><p>The Levites had no material inheritance because "the sacrifices of Yahweh the God of Israel... are his inheritance... Yahweh God of Israel was their inheritance" (<em><a href='B:60 13:14'>Jos 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:33'>Jos 13:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:20'>Num 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 10:9'>Deu 10:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:2'>Deu 18:2</a></em>). Notice how "Yahweh" is put for what is sacrificed to Him. His very existence is an imperative to sacrifice to Him, despising all material advantage in doing so. Job comments that to make gold our hope and wealth our confidence is to deny “the God that is above” (<em><a href='B:220 31:24'>Job 31:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 31:28'>Job 31:28</a></em>). To trust in material wealth is effectively to proclaim ourselves atheists. We are described as the new priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>), so all that was true for the Levites becomes true for us. We are not to seek material inheritance. God will provide for us in ways other than our possessing land and leaving an inheritance to our children. The wonder of serving Him is to more than compensate for this. </p>


text:
<p><em>This shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether ox or sheep. They shall give to the priest the shoulder, the two cheeks and the stomach- </em></p><p>The idea is "the front leg, the two jaw-bones, and the rough stomach of ruminants, in which the digestion is completed". These were thought to be the best parts of an animal; and remember that a leg and the breast of the offering were also to be given to the priest if it was a peace offering (<em><a href='B:30 7:32'>Lev 7:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>The first fruits of your grain, your new wine and your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep you shall give him- </em></p><p>There is no mention in <em><a href='B:40 18:12-13'>Num 18:12-13</a></em> of the first fleece being given to the priests. But it is mentioned here in <em><a href='B:50 18:4'>Deu 18:4</a></em>, and is an example of where Deuteronomy, 'the second law', is in places more demanding and in others more understanding.</p>


text:
<p><em>For Yahweh your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand to minister in the name of Yahweh, him and his sons forever- </em></p><p>The original intention was that all Israel should be a nation of priests, but God continually seems to recalculate His plans according to His people's responsiveness (<em><a href='B:20 19:5-6'>Exo 19:5-6</a></em>). And so the Levites were chosen, and special material provision was arranged for them; although there are continually hints that all Israel were to live in the spirit of priesthood. And under the new covenant, we are all the priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). God is likewise open to such ammendment and recalculation of intention in the way that He works with us as individuals. </p>


text:
<p><em>If a Levite comes from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he lives as a foreigner, and comes with all the desire of his soul to the place which Yahweh shall choose-</em></p><p>God encourages us to make special devotions to Him. Thus the Levites could choose to leave their areas in the provinces and go and serve at the sanctuary. We must ask what special devotion we could make in response to His grace. The structure of the law of Moses seemed to almost encourage the idea of serving God on different levels. After much study of it, the Rabbis concluded that there was within it “a distinction between holy and holy just as much as there is between holy and profane”. The Levites could choose to go and serve at Jerusalem (or wherever the sanctuary was), and therefore sell their possession of land which they had in the local area (<em><a href='B:50 18:6-8'>Deu 18:6-8</a></em>). By doing this, a number of principles were broken, in order that the highest level- serving Yahweh in the temple- might be achieved.</p>


text:
<p><em>then he shall minister in the name of Yahweh his God as all his brothers the Levites do, who stand there before Yahweh- </em></p><p>There was to be always the possibility for Levites from the provinces to come and live at the sanctuary and serve "before Yahweh", i.e. before the ark of His presence. The Levites lived in the provinces as "foreigners" (:6). This is the language of Abraham and his seed living as foreigners. They were therefore to consider the sanctuary as their home, and being away from it meant living as it were in another land. The appeal to us to live as foreigners and pilgrims is therefore partly based upon this; for we are all the spiritual priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>They shall have similar portions to eat, besides that which comes from his father’s inheritance-</em></p><p>The word for "share" in <em><a href='B:90 30:24'>1Sa 30:24</a></em> is that used here in <em><a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a></em>, where the Levites were to have the same "portions" or "share". All David's men were to have the same "share". His language choice was setting up his men to see themselves as a new priesthood. The sale of a family inheritance may not refer to property, for the Levites were not to hold property. This however may be one of many tacit acceptances in Deuteronomy that things would not be as they ought to be; perhaps the idea is that if a man repented of how his father had held property, then he was to sell it, and could then move to the live permanently near the sanctuary.</p><p>The early church began by having all things common, in imitation of&nbsp; how the priests had "like portions to eat" (<em><a href='B:50 18:8'>Deu 18:8</a></em>). Notice the stress on the equality of the priests and the studied irrelevance of their personal wealth (<em><a href='B:130 24:31'>1Ch 24:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 25:8'>1Ch 25:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 26:12'>1Ch 26:12</a></em>). We also have an example of Barnabas selling his illegally held property and giving it to the church, which may be what is in view here with the reference to the Levite selling his father's inheritance and moving to live near the sanctuary. The Law was geared around the assumption that the priests would be so caught up in Yahweh's work that they would never be rich (consider <em><a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a></em>), and the wonder of doing His work would compensate for their lack of physical possessions (<em><a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a></em>). Yet the early church couldn't sustain the intensity of their initial realization of these things. </p>


text:
<p><em>When you have come into the land which Yahweh your God gives you, you must not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations- </em></p><p>The Canaanites were to be driven out of the land for doing these abominations (:12). The reality is that the Canaanites were not driven out for those abominations, because Israel didn't drive them out. And yet it was because of their abominations that Israel were supposed to drive them out (:10,12). We can conclude that Israel didn't dispossess the Canaanites because they didn't hate their abominations but rather participated in them. </p>


text:
<p><em>There must not be found with you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices sorcery or an enchanter, a sorcerer- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em> says that they carried the tabernacle of Moloch with them through the wilderness, and Moloch was associated with child sacrifice. Moses is therefore telling them that they were not to worship Moloch once in the land. It all seems an incredibly 'soft' approach to them, rather than challenging them about their idolatry. Perhaps it reflected God's great enthusiasm for Israel at this time, for He did not behold iniquity in Jacob (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>), and presents Himself in Jeremiah as having fallen totally in love with Israel in the wilderness, wishing not to see their unfaithfulness.</p>


text:
<p><em>a charmer, a consulter with a familiar spirit, a wizard or a necromancer- </em></p><p>These people were thought to be able to tell and control the future, and to bring about healing and blessing. Yet these were all the roles of Yahweh. He had predicted a blessed future for Israel, conditional upon their obedience. But they wanted to seek to bypass this by trying to influence their future and blessing through other means. By seeking to these people they were effectively denying their relationship with God, through attempting to merely bypass Yahweh. The huge stress upon Yahweh as the source of a blessed future meant that all these classes of wizards were therefore at best redundant; and to use them was to effectively resign from relationship with Yahweh. And we must consider how we too may be tempted to effectively bypass God, seeking blessing and a (supposedly) assured future by secular means.</p>


text:
<p><em>For whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh, and because of these abominations Yahweh your God drives them out from before you- </em></p><p>See on :10. "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><em>You should be without blame before Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>The repeated references to the “journeys” of the people in the wilderness had as their basis the description of Abraham taking his journey through the desert to the promised land (<em><a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a></em>); the very same two Hebrew words recur in the command to Israel to now ‘take their journey’ (<em><a href='B:50 10:11'>Deu 10:11</a></em>), following in the steps of their father Abraham. As Abraham was commanded to "be perfect" (<em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>), so Israel were told: "<em>You</em> (after the pattern of father Abraham) shall be perfect with the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a></em>). The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms. </p><p>"Without blame" is the term used multiple times in the law of Moses about the state of sacrificial animals. But it is never used in Deuteronomy. Perhaps this reflects Moses' maturer understanding that no animal actually is without blemish. God recognizes that we will not attain perfection in this life, but we are to do our best towards it; and His love imputes righteousness to us, counting us as unblemished because of our status in Christ. For only Christ was the sacrifice totally without moral blemish (<em><a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>For these nations that you shall dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery and to diviners; but as for you, Yahweh your God has not allowed you to do so- </em></p><p>See on :10. The fact those nations were dispossessed was surely evidence that their various magicians were powerless. Yet Israel wanted to trust those same powerless people, just as they would later worship the gods of the nations who defeated them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet like me, from the midst of you, of your brothers. You are to listen to him- </em></p><p>The promise of a future prophet (who was to be Messiah) is in the context of the prohibition upon using those who claimed to foretell the future, and bring blessing and healing. Trying to achieve future blessing through them was a way of bypassing Yahweh, who had clearly offered a blessed future predicated upon obedience to the covenant. But a blessed future, that of the Kingdom of God, was to be possible through this prophet who was yet to be raised up. Possibly Joshua or some other figure could have fulfilled this prophecy, but the potential wasn't realized. And therefore it was reapplied and rescheduled to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is according to all that you desired of Yahweh your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, so that I do not die- </em></p><p>The tragedy was that to hear the personal voice of their God was intended to build their faith, and was the most wonderful empirical, experiential evidence that He was real (<em><a href='B:50 4:32-33'>Deu 4:32-33</a></em>). But faced with it, they hurriedly turned away. And this is true in essence of so many people. Israel complained that no other nation had ever been asked to hear the voice of their God in a personal way; they feared that hearing this voice meant their condemnation (<em><a href='B:50 5:26'>Deu 5:26</a></em>). But God meant it so positively; the fact they had heard God's voice was a sign of His amazing grace (<em><a href='B:50 4:32-33'>Deu 4:32-33</a></em>). Yet Israel turned the display of that grace into a reason to fear condemnation. They were far happier not being confronted by such radical grace, and the personal engagement of God with them. And so they desperately sought to use mere religion to shield them from this, asking Moses to go through with this engagement with God and then give them a few rules to obey, which didn't too deeply interrupt their lives. This is the abiding tendency of men of all ages; to flee from grace to the structures of mere religion.</p><p>It had been God's intention that they came nearer to Him and heard Him directly. But they wanted mere religion to stand between Him and them, they shied away from personal encounter with Him, and wanted Moses to speak with God and relay to them His will. But God positively interpreted their words as a request for Messiah, the word made flesh, and would answer them in the provision of the Lord Jesus (see on :18). But this would be more than a prophet; He would effectively engage them with Yahweh, as His supreme manifestation, although having human nature. And they would need to respond deeply to that engagement. </p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh said to me, They have well said that which they have spoken- </em></p><p>God’s intention that the king of Israel should personally copy out all the commandments of the Law was so that “his heart be not lifted up above his brethren” (<em><a href='B:50 17:20'>Deu 17:20</a></em>)- i.e. reflecting upon the many requirements of the Law would’ve convicted the King of his own failure to have been fully obedient, and therefore his heart would be humbled. And soon after this statement, we are hearing Moses reminding Israel that Messiah, the prophet like unto Moses, was to be raised up (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). Human failure, and recognition of it, prepares us to accept Christ. To this end, God worked through Israel’s weakness, time and again. He even used it as a path towards His provision of Messiah. God wanted to speak to them directly, but in their weakness they asked that He not do this. Instead of giving up with them, as a Father whose children say they don’t want to hear His voice… instead God goes on to tell Moses: “They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren (a prophecy applied to Christ in the New Testament)… and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him” (<em><a href='B:50 18:17-18'>Deu 18:17-18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>I will raise them up a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him-</em></p><p>The Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em> had a potential Messianic and primary fulfillment in Joshua: “I will raise them up (God ‘rose up’ Joshua- s.w. <em><a href='B:60 1:2'>Jos 1:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 7:10'>Jos 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 7:13'>Jos 7:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:1'>Jos 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:3'>Jos 8:3</a></em>)&nbsp; a prophet from among their brethren, like unto you (Joshua’s life was framed to be like that of Moses- e.g. he too was told to remove his shoe when on holy ground, also held his hands up whilst Israel fought their enemies); and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him (Joshua is constantly presented as telling Israel what God commanded him- <em><a href='B:60 4:8'>Jos 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:10'>Jos 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 4:17'>Jos 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:10'>Jos 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 8:8'>Jos 8:8</a></em>: “according to the commandment of the Lord shall ye do. See, I have commanded you”; <em><a href='B:60 8:27'>Jos 8:27</a></em>). And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”.&nbsp; The ‘likeness’ between Moses and the prophet like unto him was in that the prophet would also speak God’s words in a similar way. <em><a href='B:60 11:15'>Jos 11:15</a></em> therefore significantly comments: “As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses”.&nbsp;Joshua was a potential Messiah.</p><p>By the time he uttered Deuteronomy, Moses would probably have been the oldest person any of the congregation had ever known. Many of the earlier generation had been cut down in the wilderness. He was nearly twice the age of Joshua. He had dominated their lives from birth, had stuck with them, with their fathers and even grandparents. Just as the Lord Jesus is to be the central figure in the new Israel. Moses was also a representative of his people, just as the Lord Jesus is in a sense ‘Israel’- the suffering servant refers to both Israel and their Messiah. Moses was “adopted by an imperial parent, punished for his rashness, sentenced to wander forty years in the wilderness, forgiven, restored, hand-selected for an impossible task, accompanied by the overwhelming presence of God at every step…”, just as his beloved people. In the same way as Moses was the mediator of the old covenant, so Christ was of the new. Christ was the prophet like unto Moses (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>). Moses was the shepherd of the flock of Israel, leading them on God's behalf through the wilderness towards the promised land (<em><a href='B:290 63:12'>Isa 63:12</a></em>), as Christ leads us after baptism to the Kingdom. </p><p>Moses' persecution by Pharaoh enabled him to enter into the feelings of Israel in the slave camps; and as they fled from Pharaoh towards the Red Sea, Moses would have recalled his own flight from Pharaoh to Midian. The whole epistle to the Hebrews is shot through with allusions to Moses. "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren" (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>) is alluding to <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee (Moses)". The brethren of Christ are here paralleled with Moses; as if Moses really is representative of not only natural Israel, but spiritual too- as well as Moses being a type of Christ. For this reason he is such a clear pattern for us, and we are invited so often to identify ourselves with him by copying his example. Moses was made like his brethren through his similar experiences, as Christ was progressively made like us by his life of temptation.</p><p>The miracle of the loaves and fishes made men see the similarity between Christ and Moses, whom they perceived to have provided the manna (<em><a href='B:500 6:32'>Joh 6:32</a></em>). Therefore they thought that Jesus must be the prophet like Moses, of whom Moses wrote (<em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>). But Jesus said that He was greater than Moses, because Moses' bread only gave them temporal life, whereas if a man ate of Him, he would live for ever; His words would give spiritual life which was part of that "eternal life" of the Father (<em><a href='B:500 6:49-50'>Joh 6:49-50</a></em>). The Jews thought that the prophet like Moses of <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em> was a prophet equal or inferior to Moses. John's Gospel records how Christ was showing that the prophet would be greater than Moses. Martha understood that when she said that "the Christ... which should come into the world" (i.e. the prophet of <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>) was "the Son of God", and therefore Jesus of Nazareth (<em><a href='B:500 11:27'>Joh 11:27</a></em>). </p><p>“The prophet” (<em><a href='B:500 7:40'>Joh 7:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:52'>Joh 7:52</a></em> RV) is clearly a reference to “the prophet” like Moses, i.e. Messiah. There are many other allusions by John’s record to the <em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em> passage: “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I command him”. References to the Son only speaking what the Father commanded Him are to be found in <em><a href='B:500 4:25'>Joh 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:28'>Joh 8:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:49'>Joh 12:49</a></em>.</p><p>Christ was the prophet like unto Moses (<em><a href='B:510 3:22'>Act 3:22</a></em>). Moses was the shepherd of the flock of Israel, leading them on God's behalf through the wilderness towards the promised land (<em><a href='B:290 63:12'>Isa 63:12</a></em>), as Christ leads us after baptism to the Kingdom. It was only through Moses' leadership that they reached Canaan (10:11). As Moses very intensely manifested God to the people, so he foreshadowed the supreme manifestation of the Father in the Son. The commands of Moses were those of God (<em><a href='B:50 7:11'>Deu 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:18'>Deu 11:18</a></em>; and <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> concerning Moses' words is quoted in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:18-19'>Rev 22:18-19</a></em> concerning God's words); his voice was God's voice (<em><a href='B:50 15:5'>Deu 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:1'>Deu 28:1</a></em>), as with Christ. Israel were to show their love of God by keeping Moses' commands (<em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>); as the new Israel do in their response to the word of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>Whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him- </em></p><p>As Moses very intensely manifested God to the people, so he foreshadowed the supreme manifestation of the Father in the Son. The commands of Moses were those of God (<em><a href='B:50 7:11'>Deu 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:18'>Deu 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:32'>Deu 12:32</a></em> concerning Moses' words is quoted in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:18-19'>Rev 22:18-19</a></em> concerning God's words); his voice was God's voice (<em><a href='B:50 13:18'>Deu 13:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 15:5'>Deu 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:1'>Deu 28:1</a></em>), as with Christ. Israel were to show their love of God by keeping Moses' commands (<em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>); as the new Israel do in their response to the word of Christ. Indeed, the well known prophecy that God would raise up a prophet "like unto" Moses to whom Israel would <em>listen</em> (<em><a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a></em>) is in the context of Israel saying they did not want to hear God's voice directly. Therefore God said that he would raise up Christ, who would be another Moses in the sense that <em>he too</em> would speak forth God's word.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die- </em></p><p>Falsification of Yahweh's word, speaking falsely in His Name, was the ultimate taking of His Name in vain. Especially when they spoke the supposed words of "other gods" as if Yahweh's words. In illiterate society, the words of the prophets were absolutely vital in order for the people to hear God's words. If they were falsified, then so many people would suffer. And making others stumble out of God's way is seen as the worst kind of sin. This is the sin of false teaching; the sin is not that of genuinely misunderstanding Biblical theology, but of teaching others that sin is righteousness. </p>


text:
<p><em>If you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which Yahweh has not spoken?- </em></p><p>Again, Moses seems to foresee how badly things would go with Israel. He has just warned of the false prophet who speaks falsely in the Name of Yahweh. And he seems to accept this is going to happen, and so he now gives a way of testing whether words claiming to be Yahweh's are true or not. Moses also perceives that this question will be raised in the heart of the thoughtful, faithful ones. </p><p>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><em>When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh, if the thing doesn’t follow or happen, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him-</em></p><p>This is why the prophecies of Christ and of the last days all had some limited fulfilment in the lifetimes of the prophets who gave the prophecies. If the prophet failed to produce such signs, then "you shall not be afraid of him". But the commandment about false prophets in :20 was that they must be killed. Moses seems to foresee a situation where there would be false prophets, and the thoughtful, faithful few would ponder the truth of their words in their hearts (not openly; :21), and would not be able to have the false prophets executed. But, they were not personally to fear their words.</p>


text:
<p><em>When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations whose land Yahweh your God gives you, and you succeed them and dwell in their cities and in their houses- </em></p><p>"Succeed" 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>Despite being fully aware of how weak Israel were, Moses often speaks of the " blessing" which God would give them for obedience; he even speaks of the future blessing of obedience in the prophetic perfect, so confident was he that they would receive it: "Every man shall give as he is able (once he is settled in the land), according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which He <em>has</em> given you" (<em><a href='B:50 16:17'>Deu 16:17</a></em>). Moses speaks with confidence of how God would grant them the blessing of the land and victory over their enemies, even though these things were conditional upon their obedience (<em><a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:13'>Deu 20:13</a></em>), and even though Moses clearly knew that most of them would disobey. The conclusion from this is that Moses thought so much of that minority who would obey his covenant, who would grasp the spirit of his life and the speech he was now making. And our Lord likewise- in His feelings for us. </p>


text:
<p><em>you must set apart three cities for you in the midst of your land, which Yahweh your God gives you to possess-</em></p><p>The person who committed something worthy of death but didn’t as it were willfully do it represents each of us. The language of the city of refuge therefore becomes applicable to Christ, our refuge from the results of our sin (<em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall prepare the way, and divide the borders of your land which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that any manslayer may flee there-</em></p><p>John the Baptist's ideas of fleeing wrath and preparing a way are surely based upon the Law’s command in <em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em> that a way or road should be prepared to the city of refuge (symbolic of Christ- <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em>), along which the person under the death sentence for manslaughter could flee for refuge. John was preparing that way or road to Christ, and urging ordinary people to flee along it. They didn’t like to think they were under a death sentence for murder. They were just ordinary folk like the soldiers who grumbled about their wages, and the publicans who were a bit less than honest at work. But they had to flee.</p><p>The command to prepare a way along which to flee to the cities of refuge (<em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em>) is expressed with the very same words used about God through the Angels preparing a way for Israel to flee along, out of Egypt to the promised land (<em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>). This was obviously done purely at God’s initiative. But now, Israel were asked to do the same- to prepare a way for their and others’ salvation. When we reflect upon our own way of escape from this world, it’s clear enough that it was by grace. By God’s sole initiative we came into contact with the Gospel, or were born into such a family at such a time as enabled us to hear it. Our response to that grace must be like Israel’s- to prepare a way for others to flee, when they like us find themselves in a situation that is spiritually against them, although not of their conscious choice. </p>


text:
<p><em>This is the case of the manslayer that shall flee there and live. Whoever kills his neighbour unawares and didn’t hate him in time past- </em></p><p>We are all in the position of the man who unintentionally committed manslaughter and must therefore die. We are under sentence of death by reason of being human, as well as for our actual sins. The avenger of blood could be seen as God, for it is He alone who has the right to execute judgment for sin. And we must note that the word<em> ga'al</em> translated "avenger" is also that translated "redeemer" or 'ransomer'. The cities of refuge are therefore understood in <em><a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a></em> as looking ahead to refuge in the Lord Jesus: "Who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us". The allusion is to how the person who found they had committed a sin worthy of death, yet without as it were wishing to have done so, could flee to a city of refuge and be saved there by the death of the high priest. The curse upon Levi was that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (<em><a href='B:10 49:7'>Gen 49:7</a></em>). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ. Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing. It is the sure hope before us which is our refuge. "Hope", <em>elpis</em>, is a confident knowledge of a future reality, rather than a hoping for the best. We should be confident in our salvation. The 'guilty' person was made free totally through the death of the High Priest, clearly looking forward to the significance of the death of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbour to chop wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and hits his neighbour so that he dies; he shall flee to one of these cities and live-</em></p><p>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><em>lest the avenger of blood pursue the manslayer while his heart is hot and overtake him because the way is long, and strike him mortally, whereas he was not worthy of death because he didn’t hate him in time past- </em></p><p>We note that hatred of a neighbour was to be the reason for death. John appears to have this in mind when he reasons that hatred of our brother is effectively a living death sentence (<em><a href='B:690 2:11'>1Jn 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:20'>1Jn 4:20</a></em>). It was to be that "whoever hates his brother is a murderer", not a manslaughterer (<em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>). And that hatred can be in someone's heart, even if they have not killed the object of their hatred. This is the principle which is taught here.</p><p>But Israel were not to avenge (<em><a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a></em>). But they <em>could</em> avenge, and provisions were made for their human desire to do so in some cases (see too <em><a href='B:40 35:12'>Num 35:12</a></em>). These provisions must also be seen as a modification of the command not to murder. The highest level was <em>not</em> to avenge; but for the harshness of men's hearts, a concession was made <em>in some cases</em>, and on <em>God's</em> prerogative. <em>We</em> have no right to assume that prerogative. Rather than continually make use of God’s many concessions to human weakness, we should seek to live on a higher level.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore I command you, saying, You must set apart three cities for yourselves- </em></p><p>The emphasis was very much upon <em>them</em> making the cities of refuge, and defining the paths which led to them from all settlements in the land (<em><a href='B:50 19:3'>Deu 19:3</a></em>): "I command you, saying, You must set apart three cities for yourselves" (<em><a href='B:50 19:7'>Deu 19:7</a></em>). Yet the record in <em><a href='B:60 18:1-28'>Jos 18:1-28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 19:1-51'>Jos 19:1-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 20:1-9'>Jos 20:1-9</a></em> shows that Israel didn't do this, because they didn't even capture all the cities which were to be cities of refuge. </p>


text:
<p><em>If Yahweh your God enlarges your border as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give to your fathers- </em></p><p>If Israel had been obedient, then “the Lord your God shall enlarge thy border” (<em><a href='B:50 12:20'>Deu 12:20</a></em>). Thus “blessed be He that enlarges Gad” (<em><a href='B:50 33:20'>Deu 33:20</a></em>). Who knows the height and depth, length and breadth of what could have been for God’s people? And the same is true for us today. According to Israel’s perception of the land, so it was defined for them. God was clearly willing to still work with Israel even if He redefined the promised land to a scaled down version of what had been promised to Abraham. He is ever open to recalculation of His intentions in order to by all means remain in relationship with His wayward people. </p>


text:
<p><em>if you keep all this commandment to do what I command you this day, to love Yahweh your God and walk always in His ways, then you shall add three cities more for yourselves besides these three- </em></p><p>Those cities of refuge could have been increased in number, thereby making salvation that much 'easier' or accessible; but there is no evidence Israel availed themselves of this. Israel would be provided with more cities of refuge if they were obedient; the way of escape from sin would become easier, as it does for us the more we are obedient to God’s principles.</p><p>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>


text:
<p><em>so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and so guilt for blood be upon you-</em></p><p>If Israel were indifferent to preparing the way for others’ salvation, then innocent blood would be shed and they would be responsible for it (<em><a href='B:50 19:10'>Deu 19:10</a></em>). This is powerful stuff. Indifference to providing others with a way of escape from their sin and death means we are actually guilty of their lack of salvation. And yet we tend to think that committed sin is all we have to worry about / avoid. The lesson here, however, bites far more caustically and insistently into our comfort zone. If we are indifferent to marking out the way of escape for others, their blood will be upon our heads. Our chief excuses for not witnessing enthusiastically basically amount to laziness, indifference, not getting our act together because we don’t see we have to… when actually, there is an intense urgency about our task. </p>


text:
<p><em>But if any man hates his neighbour, and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him mortally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities-</em></p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p><em>then the elders of his city must send and bring him from there, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood that he may die- </em></p><p>The slayer of innocent blood was to be slain without pity: "you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you" (<em><a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a></em>). But David seems to have stepped up to a higher level when he told the woman of Tekoah that he would protect her son from revenge murder, after he had slain another man (<em><a href='B:100 14:8-10'>2Sa 14:8-10</a></em>). The woman pointed out that if her son was slain, the inheritance would be lost in her husband's name. Here was a case where two principles seemed to be at variance: the need to slay the guilty, and the need to preserve the inheritance. The higher level was to forgive the slayer of innocent blood, even though the Law categorically stated that he should be slain. </p>


text:
<p><em>Your eye shall not pity him, but you must put away the innocent blood from Israel- </em></p><p>We would rather expect that guilty blood must be put away. AV has "the guilt of innocent blood", LXX "so shalt thou purge innocent blood". The idea was that the guilt for innocent blood must be purged by blood. The Lord's blood was the ultimate innocent blood, and so Israel were being prepared to accept that blood was to be shed for His blood. And thus it happened (<em><a href='B:470 27:25'>Mat 27:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:28'>Act 5:28</a></em>).&nbsp;</p><p><em>That it may go well with you-</em></p><p>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><em>You must not remove your neighbour’s landmark, which those of old time have set, in your inheritance which you shall inherit, in the land that Yahweh your God gives you to possess it- </em></p><p>The law of Moses reasons as if 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. </p>


text:
<p><em>One witness must not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin that he commits. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established- </em></p><p>Insisting on more than one witness before accepting the truth of an allegation meant that gossip and slander were limited; and Jesus applies this principle to dealing with disputes within His church (<em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em>). Although His teaching about not condemning our brethren meant that He didn't advocate as it were 'putting to death', but rather stern rebuke and damage limitation. Those who served other gods had to die on the testimony of two or three witnesses. This idea is twice alluded to in the New Testament in the context of making the decision to cease fellowship with someone (<em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:1'>2Co 13:1</a></em>). The implication is that death under the Old Covenant pointed forward to first century church discipline under the New Covenant. But we must note that the reason for this was serving other gods and wilful departing from covenant relationship with the Lord- not minor reasons. And yet the Lord appears to go a step beyond this; for I detect in <em><a href='B:470 18:16'>Mat 18:16</a></em> a reference to this law, but He goes on to suggest that the higher level in interpersonal offences is not to apply this but to simply forgive.</p>


text:
<p><em>If an unrighteous witness rises up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing- </em></p><p>We have just read in :15 that the testimony of one man was not to be accepted. So this foresees a case when more than one man makes false testimony. What is in view here is a supporting witness who lives, and this will then result in the two individuals accusing each other coming "before Yahweh" (:17). In other words, the testimony of one man plus one supporting witness still wasn't enough. In this case, the matter must come before Yahweh (:17). There is here a strong sense of "innocent until proven guilty", and an awareness that a supporting witness might also be telling untruth.</p>


text:
<p><em>then both the men in the controversy shall stand before Yahweh, before the priests and the judges who shall be in those days-</em></p><p>David and Solomon appear to have concentrated all judgment in themselves, setting themselves up effectively as both king and priest, for the "judge" was to be a priest. Jehoshaphat reformed this by placing the power of judgment in the hands of a group of Levites, priests and heads of families as the higher court in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:140 19:5-8'>2Ch 19:5-8</a></em>). But still Jehoshaphat didn't appoint a singular senior judge, as required in <em><a href='B:50 17:9'>Deu 17:9</a></em>. We note from <em><a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a></em> that this singular priestly supreme judge is called "Yahweh", because he was to be Yahweh's supreme representative when it came to judgment. But it seems even the best kings of Judah preferred to keep that office in their own power.</p><p>Proverbs stresses that the man who loves wisdom will be able to judge wisely (<em><a href='B:240 2:9'>Pro 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 31:9'>Pro 31:9</a></em>). Yet it was the priests who were the judges of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a></em>), they were the ones to whom hard cases were brought. Yet Proverbs implies all could act as priests. "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable (a word elsewhere used concerning the priests' service, <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em>) than (the offering of) sacrifice" (<em><a href='B:240 21:5'>Pro 21:5</a></em>). Loving wisdom would give the ordinary Israelite a crown on his head (<em><a href='B:240 4:9'>Pro 4:9</a></em>), alluding to the High Priestly crown (<em><a href='B:20 29:6'>Exo 29:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>The judges shall make diligent inquisition, and if the witness is a false witness and has testified falsely against his brother- </em></p><p>I suggested on :16 that the case in view is when a false witness even has a false supporting witness. The "diligent inquisition" therefore required that one witness plus a supporting witness was not to enough to support a conviction. Further investigation and gathering of evidence was required. Again we note a strong sense of "innocent until proven guilty", and an awareness that a supporting witness might also be telling untruth.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>then you must do to him as he had thought to do to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you-</em></p><p>“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. The evil was to be put away by judgment appropriate to what the false accuser had intended to be done to the falsely accused. As innocent blood was to be purged by guilty blood (:13). But for us, all such judgment has been met in the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus. Therefore the "eye for an eye" judgment of :21 is now to be replaced by our forgiveness of our slanderers, rather than seeking judgment and justice upon them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Those who remain shall hear and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of you- </em></p><p>There is repeated emphasis that false accusation is an "evil" which must be removed. Pastoral leadership must take very seriously the practice of false accusation in church communities. And yet churches divide over and over because of this very issue of false accusation which isn't dealt with. The "eye for an eye" judgment hits home hard in this context- for typically the false accusation within churches is with a view to getting the falsely accused removed from the church. And on this basis, removal from the body of Christ is the judgment for those who do such things. Although it is not for us to seek to see that done; it is for us to forgive (see on :19).</p>


text:
<p><em>Your eyes must not pity; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot- </em></p><p>See on :19. When the Lord Jesus gave His commandments as an elaboration of Moses' Law, that Law was still in force. He didn't say 'When I'm dead, this is how you should behave...'. He was showing us a higher level; but in the interim period until the Law was taken out of the way, He was opening up the <em>choice</em> of taking that higher level, even though making use of the concessions which Moses offered would not have been a sin during that period. Thus He spoke of not insisting on "an eye for an eye"; even though in certain cases the Law did allow for this. He was saying: 'You can keep Moses' Law, and take an eye for an eye. But there is a higher level: to simply forgive'. </p>


text:
<p><em>When you go forth to battle against your enemies and see horses, chariots and a people more than you, you must not be afraid of them- </em></p><p>The implication is that Israel would repeatedly be the smaller force in their battles. But this must be squared with <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>. Hebrew word translated as "thousand" can mean a family, or some other administrative division. Many of the 'number problems' in the Hebrew Bible are only really resoluble using this approach. And that may be in view in the census of Israel taken in <em><a href='B:40 1:1-54'>Num 1:1-54</a></em>, and in the statement that six hundred 'thousands' of footmen left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). The census of <em><a href='B:40 1:1-54'>Num 1:1-54</a></em> gives figures such as those in <em><a href='B:40 1:21'>Num 1:21</a></em> for Reuben, which could be rendered: "forty six families ('thousands') and five hundred (men)". Although a "hundred" might also refer to an administrative division. The total in <em><a href='B:40 1:1-54'>Num 1:1-54</a></em> would then be 598 families with a total of 5550 men. The sum given in the second census in <em><a href='B:40 26:1-65'>Num 26:1-65</a></em> comes out as roughly the same, with 596 families amounting to 5730 men. On this basis, the total population (including women and children) would be anything between 20,000 to 40,000. This would enable us to make better sense of the statements that Israel were the smallest numerically of all the surrounding peoples (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:23'>Deu 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). If we insist upon taking "thousand" literally in <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>, then 600,000 male foot soldiers would imply a total population of between two and six million. The population density would have been intense, and far greater than that of many modern nations. Estimates of global population at the time suggest it was only about 40 million, and the population of Egypt was a maximum of three million (probably far less). If the Israelites were smaller than the other nations, and they numbered say 5 million, then the total population of the seven peoples of Canaan would have been at least 40 million. The territory of Canaan could not have supported such numbers. Only 70 Israelites came into Egypt with Jacob. Expansion over 430 years to several million is not realistic. This approach helps us better understand how all the men of war marched around Jericho (<em><a href='B:60 6:3'>Jos 6:3</a></em>). If there were literally 600,000 men then the city would have had to be many kilometers in circumference for them all to march around it seven times in one day. Archaeological evidence from Jericho simply doesn't support the idea of such a vast city. If Israel numbered say 5 million people, and recall there was also a "mixed multitude" with them, then if they marched 10 abreast this would require a column stretching around 1000 kilometers. Their promises to Edom and the Amorites to march only along a highway and not spill over it (<em><a href='B:40 20:17'>Num 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>) is unrealistic if they had such huge numbers. A figure of 600 family units leaving Egypt is more realistic; otherwise we start to wonder how ever all the Israelites, millions of them, came to be in one place at one time on Passover night.</p><p><em>For Yahweh your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt- </em></p><p>The great works of Yahweh which He showed at the time of their exodus from Egypt (cp. the world) and baptism at the Red Sea were in essence repeated throughout their wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>). Therefore whenever they faced discouragement and an apparent blockage to their way, they were to remember how God had redeemed them at their baptism, and to realize that in fact His work was still ongoing with them (<em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). He told them in the desert that He was "Yahweh that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:30 11:45'>Lev 11:45</a></em>). Therefore the overcoming of Edom, Moab and the Canaanite tribes is described in language lifted from the Red Sea record (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:15-17'>Exo 15:15-17</a></em>). Throughout their history, Israel were reminded that what God had done for them in their Red Sea deliverance He was continuing to do, and therefore all their enemies would likewise perish if they remained God's people (e.g. <em><a href='B:290 43:16'>Isa 43:16</a></em>). </p><p>Deuteronomy speaks time and again of how Israel's Red Sea baptism (cp. ours) was to be the basis for their daily living; the fact they had been redeemed from the world by 'baptism' was to inspire them in every aspect of spiritual endeavour. Because they had been brought out of Egypt, <em>therefore</em> they were to keep the Sabbath, not worship idols, be obedient, witness to the surrounding nations, disfellowship false teachers who would take them back to Egypt, and especially, it was to motivate them to the faith that they could overcome all obstacles in their path to the promised land (<em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). For those raised Christian, this sense of deliverance from the world and entering the body of Christ through baptism must be hard. But it is nonetheless true for you as it is for the hardest living worldling.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you draw near to the battle, the priest shall approach and speak to the people-</em></p><p>He foresaw how they would see horses and chariots and get frightened; such was Moses’ sensitivity to his people. There is a parallel between the people drawing near to battle, and the priest drawing near to the people. As their fears approached, so the comfort of God was to approach them.</p>


text:
<p><em>and tell them, Hear, Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies; don’t let your heart faint; don’t be afraid or tremble, neither be scared of them- </em></p><p>The Lord applies these words to us (<em><a href='B:500 14:1-2'>Joh 14:1-2</a></em>). Fear is always the antithesis of faith. God is often called an "awesome God" (<em><a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a></em> etc.). The Hebrew word for "awesome" is that for 'fear' (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:1-33'>Gen 18:1-33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 15:1-21'>Gen 15:1-21</a></em> etc.). The idea is that God's people are to be in such fear / awe of Him that they fear / are in awe of nothing else. Hence <em><a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a></em> says that Israel should "not be scared of" their enemies, because their God is "awesome", He is the one to be feared.</p>


text:
<p><em>for Yahweh your God goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to save you- </em></p><p>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><em>The officers must speak to the people saying, Any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it, let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it- </em></p><p><em><a href='B:50 20:5-7'>Deu 20:5-7</a></em> commanded that in time of battle, those who had just recently married, bought a new house or planted a new vineyard- should not go to the battle. But these are the very kind of reasons which the Lord Jesus alludes to in <em><a href='B:490 14:1-35'>Luk 14:1-35</a></em> as the reasons given by some for not going and working for Him. This connection not only shows that He is in a sense far more demanding than the Old Covenant was. But what the Old Covenant considered a legitimate excuse for not going to battle- He does not. And even appears to condemn those who take such ways out. Truly He is a demanding Lord. All must be for Him, and any earlier ways of legitimizing or making respectable anything less than total commitment to Him must be rejected. In this He was indeed the demanding Lord- although He had and has every right to be.</p>


text:
<p><em>Any man who has planted a vineyard and has not eaten its fruit, let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man eat its fruit-</em></p><p>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><em>Any man who has pledged to be married to a wife and has not taken her, let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her- </em></p><p>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>; <em><a href='B:50 24:5'>Deu 24:5</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>


text:
<p><em>The officers shall speak further to the people and say, Any man who is fearful and fainthearted, let him go and return to his house, lest his brother’s heart melt as his heart- </em></p><p>Mental attitudes spread so easily. 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><em>When the officers have made an end of speaking to the people, they shall appoint captains of armies at the head of the people- </em></p><p>The implication from :2,3 could be that this was to be done last minute, as the troops approached the enemy, when those who were fearful had returned home. The captains were therefore not to be a standing office, as in most armies, but were appointed at the last minute for each specific battle. In all Israel's Biblical victories, the military strategies were always in absolute defiance of secular military wisdom. For the victory was to be solely credited to God.</p>


text:
<p><em>When you draw near to a city to fight against it, proclaim peace to it-</em></p><p><em><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a></em> states that the Lord Jesus personally is "called" or "proclaimed" as peace. This is the same Hebrew word as in <em><a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a></em> - Israel were to "proclaim peace" to cities they attacked, demanding either their submission or destruction. And yet <em>we</em> are the ones who "proclaim (the) peace" of Christ to men (<em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em>). Insofar as we represent Him in our witness, our hearers are faced with a radical choice- to submit to Him or eternally perish. It's easy to forget that this is how God sees it, as we witness to people. We're so used to the rejection of our message that we perhaps fail to see the eternal importance of the choice we lay before people; and this should impart a verve and urgency of appeal to our preaching, rather than an indifferent inviting of people to meetings, discussion, etc. </p><p>But the Israelites did this to the few remaining Benjamites<em> after</em> they had massacred most of them (<em><a href='B:70 21:13'>Jdg 21:13</a></em> s.w.). This was typical of how Israel at this time were taking fragments of God's law and applying them, but absolutely out of context. Whilst they disregarded the majority of the Law, both in letter and spirit. And we see this in the wider Christian movement. Bits and pieces of Divine principle are used in a misplaced way, when the majority of God's revelation and will is ignored. </p>


text:
<p><em>If it makes you an answer of peace and opens to you, then all the people who are found therein shall become tributary to you and shall serve you- </em></p><p>Although :15 implies this legislation was only relevant to nations "far" from Israel, I discuss on <em><a href='B:60 7:1-26'>Jos 7:1-26</a></em> how that even Jericho was given the opportunity to repent and enter covenant peace with Yahweh. The conquest of Canaan was therefore only so bloody because they had refused these offers of peace. The agreement with the Gibeonites in <em><a href='B:60 9:1-27'>Jos 9:1-27</a></em> could then be read as acceptable within the spirit of this teaching here.</p>


text:
<p><em>If it will make no peace with you but wishes to make war against you, then you shall besiege it- </em></p><p>Again we must observe that the conquest of Canaan was so bloody because the Canaanites therefore wished to make way with Israel; although this legislation applies to nations "far" from Israel (:15). </p>


text:
<p><em>When Yahweh your God delivers it into your hand, you must strike every male of it with the edge of the sword- </em></p><p>"When..." suggests that victory was absolutely assured. Despite being fully aware of how weak Israel were, Moses often speaks of the "blessing" which God would give them for obedience; he even speaks of the future blessing of obedience in the prophetic perfect, so confident was he that they would receive it: "Every man shall give as he is able (once he is settled in the land), according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which He <em>has</em> given you" (<em><a href='B:50 16:17'>Deu 16:17</a></em>). Moses speaks with confidence of how God would grant them the blessing of the land and victory over their enemies, even though these things were conditional upon their obedience (<em><a href='B:50 19:1'>Deu 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:13'>Deu 20:13</a></em>), and even though Moses clearly knew that most of them would disobey. The conclusion from this is that Moses thought so much of that minority who would obey his covenant, who would grasp the spirit of his life and the speech he was now making. And our Lord likewise- in His feelings for us. </p>


text:
<p><em>but the women and the little ones, the livestock and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take for a prey to yourself, and you shall eat the spoil of your enemies, which Yahweh your God has given you-</em></p><p>The softness of Moses, the earnestness of his desire for their obedience, his eagerness to work with them in their humanity, is shown by the concessions to human weakness which he makes in Deuteronomy (with God's confirmation, of course). When they attacked a foreign city, OK, Moses says, you can take the women for yourselves- even though this is contrary to the spirit of earlier commands (<em><a href='B:50 20:14'>Deu 20:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:11'>Deu 21:11</a></em>). Likewise with the provisions for having a human king (<em><a href='B:50 17:17'>Deu 17:17</a></em>) and divorce (24:1-4). He knew the hardness of Israel's hearts, their likelihood to give way to temptation, and so he made concessions contrary to the principles behind other parts of the Law (<em><a href='B:470 19:8'>Mat 19:8</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:50 16:2'>Deu 16:2</a></em> seems to imply that now, the Passover sacrifice didn’t necessarily have to be a lamb, and it could be boiled not just roasted (:7).</p><p>God told Israel to totally destroy the spoil from the cities they attacked. But when they failed to do this with Jericho, God told them that with Ai, the next city on the agenda, they were allowed to keep the spoil (<em><a href='B:60 8:2'>Jos 8:2</a></em>); even though <em><a href='B:50 20:14-16'>Deu 20:14-16</a></em> said that this was how they should treat their distant enemies, but <em>not</em> cities like Ai which were part of their inheritance. This was an undoubted concession to human&nbsp; weakness. The same concession to human weakness applied to other cities apart from Ai; it became a general policy that "all the spoil of these cities... the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves"; and yet following straight on from this we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses" (<em><a href='B:60 11:14-15'>Jos 11:14-15</a></em>). God accepted those concessions to human weakness, this living on a lower level, as total obedience. The grace of all this is marvellous. </p>


text:
<p><em>Thus you must do to all the cities which are very far off from you, which are not of the cities of nearby nations- </em></p><p>Nations "far off" surely still referred to nations within the land promised to Abraham. 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. The fact that in one sense He knows the future... reflects His utter integrity in His dealings. He sets up potentials in great detail, even if He foresees that they will not be realized. The detailed descriptions of the temple to be built by the exiles 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> is another example; this never happened as planned and as detailed, and never will do- for Israel would not. And the same is true in countless human lives.</p>


text:
<p><em>But of the cities of these peoples that Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, you must save alive nothing that breathes- </em></p><p>See on :15. The destruction of all the breathes suggests a new creation. As the flood destroyed all that breathed within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham, so Israel were to do in Canaan.</p>


text:
<p><em>you must utterly destroy them: the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as Yahweh your God has commanded you- </em></p><p>Rahab was aware of what Israel had done to their enemies on their way to Jericho- and she appears to allude to Moses' commands to destroy utterly and not make covenant with the peoples of the land (<em><a href='B:50 2:32-37'>Deu 2:32-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:1-5'>Deu 7:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:16-18'>Deu 20:16-18</a></em>). When she says that she was aware that God had "given you the land" (<em><a href='B:60 2:9'>Jos 2:9</a></em>), she uses the same two Hebrew words used repeatedly in Deuteronomy regarding God's promise to give Israel the land of the Canaanites. "Your terror is fallen upon us" is likewise an allusion to <em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a></em> (the same Hebrew word for "terror" is used by Rahab). Rahab speaks of how her people are "fainting" in fear- quoting <em><a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a></em> about how the inhabitants of Canaan would "faint" (AV "melt away") because of Israel. Knowing all this, she has the ambition to request the impossible- that she would be the exception, that with her a covenant would be made. When she says that "we have heard" about the Exodus (<em><a href='B:60 2:10'>Jos 2:10</a></em>), she may be referring to the prophecy of <em><a href='B:20 15:14'>Exo 15:14</a></em>: "The people shall hear and be afraid". In this case, her emphasis would have been upon the word "have"- 'yes, we have heard indeed, as Moses sung, and yes, we are afraid'. Seeking God's face is actually to strive for the unachievable in this life; but it's what we are to do. Spiritual ambition of the type Rahab had lifts us far above the mire of mediocrity which there is in all human life under the sun.</p>


text:
<p><em>so that they do not teach you to do after all their abominations, which they have done to their gods; so would you sin against Yahweh your God-</em></p><p>The total destruction of the Canaanites was because they would present a temptation to the Israelites which God foreknew they would not be able to handle. We see His sensitivity to the spiritual limits of everyone, and that is so to this day, leading up to the wonderful promise of <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em> that we will never be tested beyond our capability. This is a comfort when passing through apparently overwhelming tests and temptations. As discussed on :15, God envisaged a 'stage two' of the conquest of the territory promised to Abraham, but stage two was to be more lenient, allowing the conquered people to live. The assumption was that all idolatry would be stamped out from Canaan, and Israel would be totally faithful to Yahweh before they embarked upon this second stage. And therefore absolutely all remnants of Canaanites and their culture must be destroyed. </p>


text:
<p><em>When you besiege a city a long time in making war against it to take it, you must not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them, for you may eat of them, and you shall not cut them down. Is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you?-</em></p><p>The Law of Moses sought to inculcate a culture of care and sensitivity to others, and this spirit was fulfilled ultimately in the life and death of the Lord. The continued stress on not cooking a kid in its mothers milk was surely to teach sensitivity to the feelings of the mother goat- to encourage the Israelite to feel for others, even if they are animals, and seek to enter something of their feelings. And the sensitivity and thoughtfulness of God extends even to His plant creation; a tree was to be considered for who and what it was, and not treated as an enemy.&nbsp; And how much <em>more</em> sensitive is the Father to humankind!</p>


text:
<p><em>Only the trees which you know are not trees for food you shall destroy; cut them down. And you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you until it falls-</em></p><p>The implication may be that the bulwarks should be built from non fruit bearing trees, presumably those more evidently under the curse of Eden than others. Whatever the precise intention, clearly the soldiers were to be restrained from creating wanton havoc. There was to be a restraint of blood lust and a desire to destroy which can become obsessive in wartime. For the whole military operation, as any human enterprise, was to be of God and not man.</p>


text:
<p><em>If anyone is found slain in the land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess, lying in the field and it isn’t known who has struck him- </em></p><p>"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><em>then your elders and your judges must come forth and measure to the cities which are around him who is slain- </em></p><p>We note that the judges were to be involved in the physical work of measuring. Any in a decision making position need to get their hands dirty with the actual cases they are dealing with, understanding the situation on the ground. Through this process, the judges would have seen the body, or at least its location, and become very familiar with the territory around it.</p>


text:
<p><em>The elders of the city which is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer of the herd, which hasn’t been worked with and which has not drawn the yoke-</em></p><p>The Lord’s crucifixion “near to the city" (<em><a href='B:500 19:20'>Joh 19:20</a></em>) connected with Jerusalem thereby being guilty of His blood (<em><a href='B:50 21:3'>Deu 21:3</a></em>). Heifers were used for work (<em><a href='B:70 14:18'>Jdg 14:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 10:11'>Hos 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 50:11'>Jer 50:11</a></em>), so this was a heifer especially reared for use in such sacrificial rituals.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer to a valley with running water, which is neither ploughed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley- </em></p><p>The idea was that the flowing water in the river would as it were bear away the guilt of the sin. But although the Bible teaches that there is no immortal soul nor conscious survival of death, such wrong ideas were likely clearly in the thoughts of paganic Israel. There was an idea that departed spirits congregated in dry places (<em><a href='B:490 11:24'>Luk 11:24</a></em>) but feared water, just as ghosts in the old England were thought to never cross bridges. And so the association of this flowing water with the corpse and heifer's blood, the symbol of the man's life, was in part a concession to their weakness of faith and understanding. The idea was that he was now carried away and was not there any more.</p>


text:
<p><em>The priests the sons of Levi must come near, for them Yahweh your God has chosen to minister to Him and to bless in the name of Yahweh, and according to their word shall every controversy be decided-</em></p><p>The system of judges proposed by Jethro didn't really work, because Moses again felt the burden was too great for him (see on <em><a href='B:40 11:11'>Num 11:11</a></em>), and so the 70 Spirit filled elders were appointed (<em><a href='B:40 11:16'>Num 11:16</a></em>). But this too didn't really work; because in <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em> we seem to read of the priests effectively being the judges, under the direct control of Moses and Aaron. The simple truth was that there was hardly a wise man amongst them. </p><p>Although the Levites had been set apart for Divine service immediately after God's meeting with Israel at Sinai, as outlined in Leviticus and Numbers, it seems that not until Aaron died at the end of the 40 years wandering did they actually in practice begin to serve as intended (<em><a href='B:50 10:8'>Deu 10:8</a></em>). It could be that the reason was that the Levites were ever slow to accept their responsibilities. And they generally failed in their calling over Israel's history, climaxing in the priests arranging the murder of God's own Son.</p><p>Proverbs stresses that the man who loves wisdom will be able to judge wisely (<em><a href='B:240 2:9'>Pro 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 31:9'>Pro 31:9</a></em>). Yet it was the priests who were the judges of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a></em>), they were the ones to whom hard cases were brought. Yet Proverbs implies all could act as priests. "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable (a word elsewhere used concerning the priests' service, <em><a href='B:50 21:5'>Deu 21:5</a></em>) than (the offering of) sacrifice" (<em><a href='B:240 21:5'>Pro 21:5</a></em>). Loving wisdom would give the ordinary Israelite a crown on his head (<em><a href='B:240 4:9'>Pro 4:9</a></em>), alluding to the High Priestly crown (<em><a href='B:20 29:6'>Exo 29:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 6:11'>Zec 6:11</a></em>). </p>


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


text:
<p><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>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><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>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><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>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>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><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>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><em>then you shall bring her home to your house. She must shave her head and pare her nails-</em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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>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><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>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><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>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. </p>


text:
<p><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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>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>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>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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>"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. </p>


text:
<p><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>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><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>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>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><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>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>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><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>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><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>"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><em>You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together- </em></p><p>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><em>You shall not wear mixed stuff, wool and linen together- </em></p><p>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><em>You shall make yourselves fringes on the four borders of your garment with which you cover yourself-</em></p><p>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><em>If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and hates her- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><em>The elders of that city must take the man and chastise him- </em></p><p>Chastise can mean to literally beat, or to sternly reprove with words. </p>


text:
<p><em>and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman-</em></p><p>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><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>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>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>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><em>But if this thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman- </em></p><p>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><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>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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><em>So you shall put away the evil from among you-</em></p><p>“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><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>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><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>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><em>for when he found her in the field, the betrothed woman cried and there was none to save her- </em></p><p>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. </p>


text:
<p><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>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. </p>


text:
<p><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>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><em>A man must not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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><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>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><em>You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever- </em></p><p>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><em>You must not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother- </em></p><p>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><em>You must not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as a foreigner in his land- </em></p><p>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><em>The children of the third generation who are born to them may enter into the assembly of Yahweh-</em></p><p>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. </p>


text:
<p><em>When you go forth to camp against your enemies, you must keep yourselves from every evil thing- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><em>You must have a place also outside the camp where you shall go to relieve yourself- </em></p><p>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><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>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>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><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>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;</p>


text:
<p><em>You must not deliver to his master a servant who has escaped from his master to you- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><em>You must not lend on interest to your brother, interest of money, of food or of anything that is lent- </em></p><p>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><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>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>"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><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>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><em>But if you forbear to vow, that will be no sin upon you- </em></p><p>"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><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>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>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. </p>


text:
<p><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>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><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>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><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>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. </p>


text:
<p><em>When she has departed out of his house she may go and be another man’s wife- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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>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><em>No man may take the mill or the upper millstone as pledge, for he takes a life in pledge-</em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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>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><em>Remember what Yahweh your God did to Miriam by the way as you came forth out of Egypt- </em></p><p>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>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><em>When you lend your neighbour any kind of loan, you must not go into his house to get his pledge-</em></p><p>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;


text:
<p><em>You shall stand outside and the man to whom you lent shall bring the pledge outside to you- </em></p><p>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><em>If he is a poor man you must not sleep with his pledge- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><em>You must not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, nor take a widow’s clothing in pledge- </em></p><p>God again reveals His especial interest in the foreigner, orphan and widow. This should be reflected in our perspectives too. </p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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><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>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:
<a href='B:50 24:20'>24:20</a> 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- 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><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>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; ,</p>


text:
<p><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><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><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>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.</p>


text:
<p><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>"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><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>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>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><em>You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain-</em></p><p>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>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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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>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>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>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><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>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>"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><em>His name shall be called in Israel’, The house of him who had his shoe untied’- </em></p><p>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><em>When men strive together one with another- </em></p><p>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><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>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>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><em>then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity- </em></p><p>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><em>You must not have in your bag different weights, a great and a small- </em></p><p>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><em>You must not have in your house different measures, a great and a small- </em></p><p>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><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>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><em>For all who do such things, all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>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><em>Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth out of Egypt- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>"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><em>You must blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky. Do not forget- </em></p><p>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><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>"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><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>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><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>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><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>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>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><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>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>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>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;


text:
<p><em>The Egyptians behaved badly with us, afflicted us and laid on us hard bondage-</em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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>). </p>


text:
<p><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>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>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>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><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>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><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>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><em>Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel- </em></p><p>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><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>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. </p>


text:
<p><em>This day Yahweh your God commands you to do these statutes and ordinances. You shall therefore keep and do them- </em></p><p>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><em>With all your heart and with all your soul- </em></p><p>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><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>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>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><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>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>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><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>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><em>Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day-</em></p><p>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><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><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><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>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><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>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><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><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><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>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><em>You shall sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat there and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>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><em>You must write on the stones all the words of this law very plainly- </em></p><p>"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. </p>


text:
<p><em>Moses and the priests and Levites spoke to all Israel, saying, Keep silence and listen, Israel- </em></p><p>"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><em>This day you have become the people of Yahweh your God- </em></p><p>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><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>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.</p>


text:
<p><em>Moses commanded the people the same day saying- </em></p><p>"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><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><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>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><em>These shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan and Naphtali- </em></p><p>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><em>The Levites shall answer and tell all the men of Israel with a loud voice- </em></p><p>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". </p>


text:
<p><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>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><em>‘Cursed is he who dishonours his father or his mother’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p>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><em>‘Cursed is he who removes his neighbour’s landmark’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p><em>‘Cursed is he who makes the blind wander out of the way’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p>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><em>‘Cursed is he who deprives the foreigner, fatherless and widow of justice’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p>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><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>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><em>‘Cursed is he who lies with any kind of animal’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p>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. </p>


text:
<p><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>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.</p>


text:
<p><em>‘Cursed is he who lies with his mother-in-law’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p>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. </p>


text:
<p><em>‘Cursed is he who strikes his neighbour in secret’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’- </em></p><p>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><em>‘Cursed is he who takes a bribe to kill an innocent person’. All the people shall say ‘Amen’-</em></p><p>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><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>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><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>"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><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>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><em>You shall be blessed in the city and you shall be blessed in the field-</em></p>&nbsp;<p>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><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>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><em>Your basket and your kneading trough shall be blessed- </em></p><p>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><em>You shall be blessed when you come in and you shall be blessed when you go out- </em></p><p>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><em>Yahweh will cause your enemies who rise up against you- </em></p><p>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><em>To be struck before you. They will come out against you one way and will flee before you seven ways- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><em>All the peoples of the land- </em></p><p>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><em>Will see that you are called by the name of Yahweh and they will be afraid of you-</em></p><p>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>"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><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>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><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>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>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>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><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>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><em>and do not turn aside- </em></p><p>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><em>From any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand or to the left- </em></p><p>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><em>To go after other gods to serve them- </em></p><p>"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><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>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><em>You shall be cursed in the city and you shall be cursed in the field-</em></p><p>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><em>Your basket and your kneading trough shall be cursed- </em></p><p>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><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>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><em>You shall be cursed when you come in and you shall be cursed when you go out- </em></p><p>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><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>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><em>Because of the evil of your doings by which you have forsaken Him- </em></p><p><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><em>Yahweh will make the pestilence cleave to you until He has consumed you from off the land- </em></p><p>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><em>Into which you now go in to possess it- </em></p><p>"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><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>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><em>Your sky that is over your head shall be brass and the earth that is under you shall be iron- </em></p><p>This may well be the result of latter day chemical or nuclear weapons; see on :22.</p>


text:
<p><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>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><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><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>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><em>And you shall be tossed back and forth among all the kingdoms of the earth- </em></p><p>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><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>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>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><em>Yahweh will strike you with the boil of Egypt- </em></p><p>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><em>And with the tumours, the scurvy and the itch, from which you cannot be healed- </em></p><p>Nuclear fallout would fulfil these words- see on :22.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh will strike you with madness, blindness and astonishment of heart-</em></p><p><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><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>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><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>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><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>"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><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>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><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>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><em>so that you will be mad because of the sight your eyes shall see- </em></p><p>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><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>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><em>Yahweh will bring you and your king whom you will set over you- </em></p><p>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><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>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>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><em>You will become an astonishment, a proverb and a byword among all the peoples where Yahweh shall lead you away- </em></p><p>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. </p>


text:
<p><em>You will carry much seed out into the field and gather little in, for the locust shall consume it- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>See on :39. The picture here is of labour in vain, so it was all a psychological punishment.</p>


text:
<p><em>You will father sons and daughters but they shall not be yours, for they will go into captivity- </em></p><p>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><em>All your trees and the fruit of your ground shall the locust possess- </em></p><p>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><em>The foreigner who is in the midst of you shall mount up above you higher and higher- </em></p><p>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><em>And you shall come down lower and lower- </em></p><p>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><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>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><em>All these curses will come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed- </em></p><p>As if the curses are to be equated with the invaders.</p><p><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>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><em>and they shall be to you and your seed a sign and a wonder forever-</em></p><p>"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><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>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>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>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><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>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><em>And He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you- </em></p><p>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>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><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>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><em>a nation of fierce face who will not respect the person of the old nor show favour to the young-</em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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. </p>


text:
<p><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>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><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>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.</p>


text:
<p><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>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>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>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>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><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>"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><em>He will bring on you again all the diseases of Egypt which you feared, and they shall cling to you- </em></p><p>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>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><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>"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. </p>


text:
<p><em>You will be left few in number- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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>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>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><em>You will be plucked from off the land where you go in to possess it- </em></p><p>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><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>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><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>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><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>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><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>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>"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>"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>"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>"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>"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>"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>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>"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><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>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>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><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><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>


