5 More Miscellaneous Laws To Help Us Get Along With God's People

[ photo courtesy of MarketWatch.com and the Everett Collection -- look them up ]

Prostitution, Offerings, Interest, Vows, and Greed -- All Issues God Warns About -- Deuteronomy 23:17-24

This passage covers five more laws God lays out for us via Moses. Here's a summary and some thoughts:

1. Prostitution (verses 17). It's a no-go for women and for men. No gender bias here. The text (NASB at least) refers specifically to a "cult prostitute". Many argue with the use of that adjective.  Wikipedia which seems to prefer the phrase 'sacred prostitution' says this:

"Sacred prostitution, temple prostitution, cult prostitution, and religious prostitution are general terms for a rite consisting of paid intercourse performed in the context of religious worship, possibly as a form of fertility rite or divine marriage."

There is much controversy as to whether or not they really existed as we know prostitutes today or whether they performed other duties in the temples of the ancient world. Much depends on the Hebrew words used in each case. Suffice it to say, that whatever their purpose, the general feeling is that carrying them out was unacceptable to God. (If you do a Google study on this, you will get much more than you bargained for, trust me.)

Our rather prolific commentator, Matthew Henry, looks at these verses this way:

"The land of Israel must be no shelter for the unclean; no whore, no Sodomite, must be suffered to live among them (v. 17, 18), neither a whore nor a whoremonger. No houses of uncleanness must be kept either by men or women. Here is . . . [a] good reason intimated why there should be no such wickedness tolerated among them: they were Israelites. This seems to have an emphasis laid upon it. For a daughter of Israel to be a whore, or a son of Israel a whoremaster, is to reproach the stock they are come of, the people they belong to, and the God they worship. It is bad in any, but worst in Israelites, a holy nation,2 Sa. 13:12.

2. Unacceptable Offerings (verse 18). In this verse the Israelites were told, and we need to pay attention, that monies coming from prostitution or the "wages of a dog" are unacceptable to God. Period. What does the text mean when it refers to the "wages of a dog" and is God equating that with prostitution?  For starters, we are told both of these things are "an abomination to the Lord your God."

David Guzak suggests that 'hire of a harlot' refers to female prostitution earnings whereas 'wages of a dog' refers to earnings from male prostitution. He goes on to say this is:

"A reminder of the principle that the work of the LORD does not need money from immoral or ill-gotten gains. Even in its most gross forms, this kind of practice has been allowed in the institutional church."

Guzik goes on to quote English commentator John Trapp writing in 1659: "And what a stinking shame is that, that stews and brothel-houses are licensed by the Pope, who reaps no small profit by them?"

Of course this issue as to whether or not pastors or missionaries should accept monies earned in immoral ways (e.g. through prostitution or gambling, or extortion, etc.) to carry out their work has been around for decades. I must admit I have to this point in time sided with the argument I heard a few years ago in favor of doing so that went something like this: "The devil has had that money long enough; it's time we put it to work for God."  That was easy to accept, but having studied these verses, I have changed my mind. God is richer than that. He doesn't need it and I believe, He doesn't want it, according to this passage.

Henry comes across on this as well:

"A just mark of displeasure put upon this wickedness, that the hire of a whore, that is, the money she gets by her whoring, and the price of a dog, that is, of the Sodomite, pimp, or whoremaster (so I incline to understand it, for such are called dogs, Rev. 22:15), the money he gets by his lewd and villainous practices, no part of it shall be brought into the house of the Lord (as the hire of prostitutes among the Gentiles was into their temples) for any vow. This intimates, 

• • • (1.) That God would not accept of any offering at all from such wicked people; they had nothing to bring an offering of but what they got by their wickedness, and therefore their sacrifice could not but be an abomination to the Lord, Prov. 15:8.
    • (2.) That they should not think, by making and paying vows, and bringing offerings to the Lord, to obtain leave to go on in this sin, as (it should seem) some that followed that trade suggested to themselves, when their offerings were admitted. Prov. 7:14, 15, This day have I paid my vows, therefore came I forth to meet thee. Nothing should be accepted in commutation of penance.
    • (3.) That we cannot honour God with our substance unless it be honestly and honourably come by. It must not only be considered what we give, but how we got it; God hates robbery for burnt-offerings, and uncleanness too."

These commentaries alone have much for us to consider. God doesn't accept such offerings. We can't go on with sin and worship at the same time. 

3. Interest (verses 19 and 20). The Israelites could lend money, or food, or anything that could be lent, to both other Israelites and to foreigners, but they could only charge interest (of any type) to foreigners. In our study of earlier chapters, you will remember that God has provided ways for unpaid debts to be covered between Israelites. The text says God expected the Israelites to keep this law "so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land".  Do you get the sense that this has something to do with being successful in business?  I do.

Robert Jamieson suggests that this distinction was "admirably conducive to keeping the Israelites separate from the rest of the world." Business practices have a way of drawing us more towards the world, than the other way around. So this distinction does indeed make sense for us today as well. While we are in no way to cheat foreigners in our dealings with them, there is an opportunity to treat God's people in an even more beneficial manner.

Matthew Henry reminds us that because the Israelites were to share all things in common, there was very little need for lending anything to each other.  The lending was primarily to help people get by with their immediate needs of day to day living and suggests to me perhaps that it may have been lending as we might lend a cup of sugar for baking to a neighbor today until she/he can get to the store.

4. Your Word (verses 21-23). When you promise something, do it. Don't delay. When you owe something, pay it back on time as you said you would. Because if you don't, God calls it "sin" to you and He will require it of you one way or another. There seems to be an out -- if you didn't promise or make a vow to do so, then it is not sin in you. But you still need to do the ethical thing. The last of these three verses goes on to say you need to perform whatever your lips said you would perform, because for you, saying it is the same "as you have voluntarily vowed (it) to the Lord your God." That's a big one. Integrity matters to God. It's a hard thing to find these days, especially among politicians, but also rare in the business world.

Again Guzik educates us here with his thoughts: "In many circles today, the breaking of an oath is just standard business practice -- but before God, it is simply sin."

For Guzik, the question arises as to whether or not 'vows' or 'oaths' are permitted for a Christian today. I like the way he answers this dilemma: 

"i. Some think not, because of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:34-37: But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. (See also James 5:12)

ii. But, in context of the rest of Scripture, we see that Jesus was not forbidding oaths, as much as telling us that we should be so filled with integrity in our words that an oath is unnecessary.

iii. Jesus answered under oath in a court (Matthew 26:63-64), and God Himself swears oaths (Luke 1:73, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 3:18, 6:13, 17).

Vows are never required by God; many times it is better not to make a vow. . . . Many vows are just plain foolish - "I'll never do that again" is a foolish vow, and it is foolish and unwise to demand such a vow from someone else. . . .  Of course, there is a vow we all can and should make - a vow to praise God: Vows made to You are binding upon me, O God; I will render praises unto You (Psalm 56:12). So I will sing praise to Your name forever, that I may daily perform my vows (Psalm 61:8)."

5. Greed (verses 24-25). When the Israelites were visiting the vineyards of their neighbors or their fields, they were only to partake of the fruit or grapes or grain to the extent that they were hungry and needed to eat. They were not to  bring baskets and fill them, or apply a sickle to the grain in order to reap more faster  (You may remember that some Israelites had the practice of taking more than they were supposed to as far back as when God was providing them with 'daily' manna in the wilderness.)

Guzik explains it as follows:

"The idea is that, as one traveled they had the right to pick off a few grapes or heads of grain to eat along the way. It wasn't the right to harvest from your neighbor's fields, but to provide for your own immediate needs. . . . This is the law Jesus and His disciples were operating under when they plucked heads of grain and ate them, rubbing them in their hands (Luke 6:1-5). They were accused by the Pharisees of breaking the Sabbath, but not of stealing grain, because the Pharisees knew this law in the book of Deuteronomy."

Henry adds some new thoughts on this one:

"[The law got the Israelites used] to hospitality, and teaches us to be ready to distribute, willing to communicate, and not to think every thing lost that is given away. Yet, [I]t forbids us to abuse the kindness of our friends, and to take the advantage of fair concessions to make unreasonable encroachments: we must not draw an ell from those that give but an inch. They may eat of their neighbour's grapes; but it does not therefore follow that they may carry away."

IN ALL THESE 5 AREAS, it sounds to me that God and Moses certainly knew the Israelites and God certainly knows us. Bottom line:

-- No prostitution.

-- No ill-earned offerings to God (you can't sin at night and worship in the morning)

-- No interest to be charged to our brothers and sisters in the Lord

-- No NOT keeping our word (it is a sin)

-- No greediness or misuse of the kindness of others

How are you and I doing in these matters?

Note to reader: If you like the way we are studying scripture, why not subscribe to our posts by providing us just with your email? You can do that to the right of this column in the "Subscribe to" section.  You can also search our earlier studies in the "Blog Archive" section below that.  Finally, please encourage others to study along with us by sharing this link with your family and friends. Thank you and God bless.  Ken G.

• • 
    

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

5 Things We Need in Order to Deal with Refugees God's Way Today

[ courtesy world vision.org -- look them up ]

Our Responsibility To Those Fleeing From Their Masters -- Deuteronomy 23:15-16

In this chapter of miscellaneous (and generally unrelated) laws given to the Israelites, we have two verses pertaining to a "slave who has escaped from his master" and come over to the land of the Israelites for refuge. The first verse (vs. 15) is clear, you are not to return them to their master.

And then in verse 16, we read that this slave that has fled is to live in the land that God had given to the Israelites, the promised land, wherever he chooses.  And finally, he is not to be mistreated.

As I read these two verses, I wondered what the message for us living today is. Is it just talking about real slaves?  Technically, slavery was abolished many many decades ago. Is it talking about those who are oppressed? Well, millions of people are oppressed today in all sorts of ways. What about refugees? Is it talking, to us at least, about how we are to treat refugees?

Oppression is big these days -- people are oppressed by various masters -- drugs, demons, poverty, sex trade, etc. Refugees are also in the millions around the world these days -- people fleeing or claiming to be fleeing from oppression in their own lands. How are we know what our response should be?

And finally, assuming the lesson or principle for us is indeed our treatment of the oppressed and refugees, what really do we owe them?

These were questions that came to mind as I studied these verses. But before I give you any thoughts that would form my personal reactions, I wanted to turn to a few commentators and see what they had to say.

There was not a lot to be found among the commentators I usually refer to.  Robert Jamieson suggests the 'slave' was "evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people, who was driven by tyrannical oppression, or induced, with a view of embracing the true religion, to take refuge in Israel."

Matthew Henry has the most to say, 

"The land of Israel is here made a sanctuary, or city of refuge, for servants that were wronged and abused by their masters, and fled thither for shelter from the neighbouring countries, v. 15, 16. We cannot suppose that they were hereby obliged to give entertainment to all the unprincipled men that ran from service; Israel needed not (as Rome at first did) to be thus peopled. But, 

• 1. They must not deliver up the trembling servant to his enraged master, till upon trial it appeared that the servant has wronged his master and was justly liable to punishment. Note, It is an honourable thing to shelter and protect the weak, provided they be not wicked. God allows his people to patronise the oppressed. The angel bid Hagar return to her mistress, and Paul sent Onesimus back to his master Philemon, because they had neither of them any cause to go away, nor was either of them exposed to any danger in returning. But the servant here is supposed to escape, that is, to run for his life, to the people of Israel, of whom he had heard (as Benhadad of the kings of Israel, 1 Ki. 20:31) that they were a merciful people, to save himself from the fury of a tyrant; and in that case to deliver him up is to throw a lamb into the mouth of a lion.
• 2. If it appeared that the servant was abused, they must not only protect him, but, supposing him willing to embrace their religion, they must give him all the encouragement that might be to settle among them. Care is taken both that he should not be imposed up on in the place of his settlement-let it be that which he shall choose and where it liketh him best, and that he should not exchange one hard master for many-thou shalt not oppress him. Thus would he soon find a comfortable difference between the land of Israel and other lands, and would choose it to be his rest for ever. Note, Proselytes and converts to the truth should be treated with particular tenderness, that they may have no temptation to return."

Clearly, at least Matthew Henry, applies some limitations or boundaries as to which runaway slave or refugee we are to help. You will have to decide for yourself. Sadly, this whole thing has become a political issue these days partly because we have not looked to Scriptures for guidance, and partly because there is a scarcity of resources available to provide support for them and a country's own citizens at the same time. It is also a political issue for western countries as some parties believe in open borders in order to gain the future votes of today's refugees who would soon become immigrants.

I maintain that if we stuck to the guidance provided by Scripture, we could find and then pursue the right approach. Here is my thinking on this whole thing and I'd love to hear yours:

1. We need a definition of what a refugee is today that is in keeping with the Word of God. Clearly it is someone who is oppressed and abused and fearing for their life or safety. Currently the UNHCR (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) uses this definition:

"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."

Is that the definition that God would have us use? I see some holes in the definition. The definition states that a refugee is one who flees their country because of "persecution, war or violence". Think about that definition. If Canada or the U.S. were involved in a war with each other, then, by that definition, everyone in Canada and the U.S. would qualify as a refugee. Major flaw in the definition.  In my opinion, the only part of the definition that makes sense is if an individual was the actual subject of 'persecution'.

It gets worse from there. Candidates also qualify, by the U.N. definition, if they have a "well-founded fear of persecution" albeit for the reasons outlined (i.e. due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). The problem is not with the legitimate reasons for the 'fear of persecution' but rather with the fact that we have no real initial control of whether the fear is "well-founded" or not.

And reading further into the definition, there is much weight placed to the fact of whether or not they can return home safely. That's okay, but it also seems all you have to claim is that you are "afraid to do so" and you meet the definition.

I believe the current U.N. definition requires a major upgrade.

2. We need adjudicators of who qualifies that are not politically motivated, but God-fearing individuals who have God-given wisdom in making these decisions in a fair way. This is not the case today. In the last few years, for example, much has been made of the fact that these adjudicators favor certain ethnic or religious groups over others with hardly any Christian individuals or families qualifying for refugee status.

3. We need a process that makes sense. Today, it appears to me that people simply decide that they can get from their country of origin to some other preferable country by claiming to be refugees. They then make their way to those countries, legally or otherwise, or show up at that country's borders and expect to be let in. Somehow, we need a process whereby all refugees in imminent danger are moved to a designated nation or geographical place on earth (supported financially and fairly by all members of the U.N.) until the validity of their claim can be determined. Once claimers of refugee status get to their desired destination for whatever reason, before their case has been validated, it is too late. Politics then gets in the way.

4. We need to recognize the difference between a legitimate refugee and a citizen. These differences are huge. We cannot afford, nor is it fair to citizens (especially non-believers), to provide at their expense, the same privileges and benefits to refugees that citizens have worked hard to earn over time. Certainly we need not provide things which we do not provide to our own citizens or in a way that is unfair to our own citizens. I believe, as Christians, we need our nation to provide the basics for living, and anything over and above that, we can choose to provide individually out of our own pocket, maybe to individually individual refugees.

5. We need to decide what foreign practices we will allow in our country. God certainly did not expect the Israelites to allow heathen practices in their land. Neither should we. For example, honor killings and child genital mutilations are out. No if's, but's, or why's. 

Okay, let's review. God said "don't return the slave to his master".  Agreed, providing we can ascertain that he was truly a slave and that his master misused and abused him, as Henry suggests in his commentary. After that, God said "let him live anywhere he wants in your land". This would be subject to the same requirements or qualifications that others need to adhere to in order to live there. For example, he could not live in the temple, or where the Levites lived. I, today, cannot live, for example, in a penthouse downtown in my city or on millionaire's row, simply because I can't afford it. Where possible, a refugee should initially be given liveable accommodations, but not ones that are better than the majority of our citizens. Once he/she gets settles, gets a job, they should be free to move to where they can afford. Today, as happened in the U.S. during President Obama's terms, refugees who later became citizens, were all initially moved as a group to certain locals which would guarantee the election of certain candidates for the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is not right.

Finally, God says, do not abuse them. Agreed. But let us also not burden or abuse our citizens in order to appease our refugees. There is a balance that needs to be struck.

What do you think about this very relevant topic of today? Are our nations approaching the matter of refugees in the right way?

Note to reader: If you like the way we are studying scripture, why not subscribe to our posts by providing us just with your email? You can do that to the right of this column in the "Subscribe to" section.  You can also search our earlier studies in the "Blog Archive" section below that.  Finally, please encourage others to study along with us by sharing this link with your family and friends. Thank you and God bless.  Ken G.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

What God, as Commander-In-Chief, Expects from His Military

[ courtesy of topdoctorsonline.com ]

The Need for Holiness, Purity, & Hygiene In the Military -- Deuteronomy 23:9-14

God, through Moses, had some instructions for Israel's armed forces.

If you want to fight your enemies successfully, make sure you "keep yourself from every evil thing."(verse 9)  Now, that's plain and simple and it's true even today as we fight our own individual enemies, our enemies at work, our political enemies, or our spiritual Enemy.

The thing God was most concerned about in the days of Israel was that His people not get involved in the idolatry of the enemies they were fighting. I wonder what God wants His people not to be involved with today as they fight their enemies and God's? Well, looking at those who have professed to be fighting God's enemies recently and have failed, may I humbly suggest that greed, hypocrisy, and sexual sins have been some of the key evil things God would have us "keep ourselves from". Matthew Henry says this,

"Soldiers, in executing their commission, must keep themselves from gratifying the lusts of malice, covetousness, or uncleanness, for these are wicked things-must keep themselves from the idols, or accursed things, they found in the camps they plundered."

Verses 10-11, there are instructions for cleanliness with respect to "some occurrence in the night" which many believe refers to nocturnal emissions. The cleansing ceremony for this is described in Leviticus 15:16-18 and once observed, that individual that was deemed unclean, may return to the camp.

Verses 12-13 describe how God through Moses, even had given thought to our human needs and our disposal of our human excrement. The Israelites were to go outside the camp, with a spade, do their business, then use the spade to cover it.

Now Guzik adds more background:

"God commanded sanitary cleanliness among the army of Israel; each soldier was to carry some type of shovel, with which he could cover [his] refuse.

i. This command was given, "Partly, to prevent the annoyance of ourselves or others; partly, to preserve and exercise modesty and natural honesty; and principally, that by such outward rites they might be inured to the greater reverence of the Divine Majesty, and the greater caution to avoid all real and moral uncleanness." (Poole)

ii. Some ancient rabbis taught that the holy city of Jerusalem should be considered "the camp of the LORD." Under this reasoning, one had to go outside the camp to relieve one's self. However, for many people, the trip outside the large "camp" of Israel (the city of Jerusalem) was longer than what would be permitted on the Sabbath. Therefore, as a practical matter, the rabbis prohibited a Jew from relieving themselves on the Sabbath day." Okay, don't ask me how the Jewish people got around this.  But I assume it's possible if you get your timing right.

Verse 14 gives the reasoning for all of these laws. Moses says the Israelites needed to follow these laws "Since the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you." And since He is Holy, your camp must be holy. God must not see anything "indecent among you lest He turn away from you." People, it's for your own good, Moses was saying.

Here's the bottom line for me from this passage. There are four laws for fighting your enemies -- 1) keep away from evil things; 2) be physically clean; 3) dispose of your refuse properly; and 4) keep your camp (house) holy.

Everyone of those things are applicable to us today if we are to do the Lord's work and if we want His help in fighting our enemies. Is there any wonder, especially with laws 1 and 4, that many Christians are losing their personal and collective battles against the Enemy today?

I close with this comment. Whether we like it or not, God Who is Holy cannot be in the presence of unholiness. When we behave in any unholy way, verse 14 says, He may well "turn away from" us. Have you ever thought about that? God may not 'stay' away because He loves us too much, but He certainly isn't going to hang around while we are sinning. If you haven't proven that in your life yet, then I will assume you are still very young. The good news is He is waiting to come back and help you beat your Enemy. And that's Good News.

Note to reader: If you like the way we are studying scripture, why not subscribe to our posts by providing us just with your email? You can do that to the right of this column in the "Subscribe to" section.  You can also search our earlier studies in the "Blog Archive" section below that.  Finally, please encourage others to study along with us by sharing this link with your family and friends. Thank you and God bless.  Ken G.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Who's In and Who's Out of the Assembly of the Lord, and what does that term mean anyway?

[ photo courtesy of the torah.com -- check it out ]

Does God's Exclusivity in the Days of Israel Make Any Sense? -- Deuteronomy 23:1-8

Here we go again -- can we really make any heads or tails out of the beginning verses of, this time, Deuteronomy chapter 23? Well, before we even try we need to agree on some terms.

This is the Old Testament. This was specific to the Israelite Nation that had recently come out of Egypt and had even more recently settled in the Promised Land.

Second, there is no single definition that commentators actually agree to with respect to the meaning of the phrase "the assembly of the Lord". So says Matthew Henry. For Chuck Smith, it's simply the 'temple' and this passage refers to entry to the temple. Robert Jamieson, who agrees with Henry, says that what is banned here is either "admission to public honors and offices in the Church and state of Israel" or it means, "in the case of foreigners, incorporation with that nation by marriage."

David Guzik is much more intrigued with the whole thing and he goes into a much more detailed explanation of the term:

"When we read this term, it usually refers to the nation gathered before the LORD in worship, such as when they were gathered at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 5:22, 9:10, 10:4, and 18:16). But it doesn't always have this sense.

i. Deuteronomy 31:30 refers to all the congregation of Israel, while Deuteronomy 31:28 makes it clear that "all the congregation" was gathered through all the elders of your tribes, and your officers. So, in some contexts, the congregation can refer to elders and officers. It may very well be that these exclusions from the assembly of the LORD are exclusions not from the religious life of Israel, but from the political life of the nation.

ii. Poole suggests that the idea of the assembly of the LORD is the leadership, or the rulers of Israel. These people were barred not from the religious life of Israel, but from the political life of the nation. Trapp agrees, saying on shall not enter the assembly of the LORD: "Shall not go in and out before the people as a public officer." Clarke adds, "If by entering into the congregation be meant the bearing a civil office among the people, such as magistrate, judge, &c., then the reason of the law is very plain."

iii. Isaiah 56:3-5 shows that even eunuchs and foreigners could be accepted before the LORD if they would obey Him, and they would be accepted before the "normal" people who disobeyed God."

So, we have several choices: meaning the temple (most conservative); the elders and officers of the temple (moderate); or the leadership of Israel (liberal view). You will have to make up your own mind as to the right interpretation -- or you can wait to ask God what He intended when you meet your Maker. I personally, contrary to my nature, have opted for the moderate view in this case. Not being allowed into 'the assembly of the Lord' for me refers to not having an office in the church or the temple. But I may be wrong. If so, please correct me as soon as possible.  [You can leave a message right here on the blog or go back to the social media source that directed you to today's blog.]

In the meantime, let's move on to see who's in and who's out of the 'assembly of the Lord'.

In verse 1, we see that eunuchs (men who have been castrated, especially, in the past, those employed to guard the women's living areas at an oriental court) are forbidden to be part of the assembly. Guzik has this to add:

"Eunuchs were excluded because God's covenant with Israel was vitally connected with the idea of the seed, and emasculation is a "crime" against the seed of man. Additionally, most eunuchs were made to be so in pagan ceremonies where they were dedicated to pagan gods." Again, God wanted no part of this association in His 'assembly'.

Robert Jamieson provides us with some more interesting insights into the idea of a eunuch. He writes:

"It was a very ancient practice for parents in the East by various arts to mutilate their children, with a view to training them for service in the houses of the great."  (I guess what happens today to young girls in some cultures has a long history.)

In verse 2, God commanded that no one who is a bastard (or who is illegitimate) be allowed into the 'assembly' and that went for any of his next ten generations. Again, Guzik adds here:

"It is difficult to define exactly what is meant by the term of illegitimate birth. Some later Jewish writers defined this as someone who was born of an incestuous relationship between Jews; others said it refers to those born of mixed marriages between the people of Israel and their pagan neighbors (as in Nehemiah 13:23)."

Verses 3-6, God prohibits Ammonites and Moabites from being part of the 'assembly' and provides the reasons. Guzik adds one more thing:

"Moab and Ammon were the two sons born to the daughters of Lot through their incest with their father (Genesis 19:30-38)." God wanted no part of that family in His "assembly".

One thing we know is that God has an excellent memory. What we do for Him or His people, will be rewarded; what we do against Him or His people, will require accountability.

Then verses 7-8 take an interesting twist -- Edomites (the descendents of Esau and thus "your brothers") and Egyptians (in whose land the Israelites were aliens) are not to be detested and three generations down the road, they qualify to be part of the 'assembly'. As for the Edomites, Guzik adds this interesting tidbit: 

"Interestingly, one of the most famous Edomites in history was abhorred by Israel - Herod the Great. Many of his spectacular building projects in Judea were intended to not only glorify his own name, but to win the favor of the Jews who despised him as an Edomite."

And then Guzike says this about the Egyptians:

"The Egyptians were also to receive more favor than the Moabites or Ammonites, because Israel was a guest in Egypt for almost 400 years. Though the years Israel spent in Egypt were hard, God had a great purpose for them. Egypt was like a mother's womb for Israel; they went in as a large family, and came out as a distinct nation."

So, what's the bottom line for us? I attend a local church where only 'members' are allowed to lead from the pulpit (prayer, preaching, singing, etc.) or to teach a class or small group on a regular basis. I think that is right. Becoming a member requires not only commitment but also taking a course to make sure you and the rest of the church are on the same page theologically. That's a good thing. That is how the church can preserve it's doctrine and practices. So much more so for the new state of Israel at the time of the Old Testament. God knew how rebellious the Israelites would be time and time again going forward. Can you imagine how much worse things would have been if the groups banned here were allowed to run the "assembly"? I can. And I'm glad that God took this position.

However, we are not talking about entry to the 'church or family of God' here. We know that through Jesus Christ, all can be saved -- eunuchs and bastards are no exception, nor are the descendants of the Moabites and the Ammonites.

Note to reader: If you like the way we are studying scripture, why not subscribe to our posts by providing us just with your email? You can do that to the right of this column in the "Subscribe to" section.  You can also search our earlier studies in the "Blog Archive" section below that.  Finally, please encourage others to study along with us by sharing this link with your family and friends. Thank you and God bless.  Ken G.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Laws About Lies, Love, Lust w.r.t. Marriage: Does God Favor One of the Sexes?

[ photo courtesy of ctvnews.ca ]

The Law of Marriage -- Deuteronomy 22:13-30

As I started rereading this rather gruesome passage, I was struck at first about the unfairness of the treatment of men as compared to women.  I thought that men got a better deal.  Now, how am I going to explain this to myself and to others reading this blog. Does God really favor men over women? Let's find out.

I strongly recommend that you read the passage first and then come back to the blog.

In verses 13-21 we have the situation where the following occurs: A man takes a wife and after they have sexual intercourse, he turns against her. He claims she wasn't a virgin. But the parents have proof of her virginity (clothes, covers, whatever) and they show it to the elders of the city. The elders are satisfied that she was a virgin. They take the man and "chastise him", fine him 100 shekels (for the girls' parents) "because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel", she remains his wife and can never divorce her.

Chuck Smith adds this: "Now in those days, when you had your marriage ceremony and you went in for the nuptial rites, actually you would take a cloth and hand it back out to your parents, proving that you were a virgin, and they would save that. Then if the guy you married turned out to be a dirty dog, and he says, she wasn't a virgin when I married her, and starts spreading evil stories, your parents would bring out the tokens of your virginity."

David Guzik, explains the importance of virginity in Israel: "i. It is important to understand that in ancient Israel virginity was valued. It was seen as a great loss to give up one's virginity before marriage, and if a woman was known to have lost her virginity, it greatly reduced her chances of getting married. ii. By the same principle, if a husband believed that his wife had lied about her virginity, he felt cheated."

Now let's look a little closer at this. These two are married. There is deception on someone's part -- either hers or his. Deception is never a good thing in marriage. We also note that God and the Israelites thought very highly of Israel's virgins -- they were not to be shamed by a man.

I like what Matthew Henry points out here: "Upon his dislike of her [a man] might have divorced her if he had pleased, by the permission of the law (ch. 24:1), but then he must have given her her dowry: if therefore to save that, and to do her the greater mischief, he would thus destroy her good name, it was fit that he should be severely punished for it, and for ever after forfeit the permission to divorce her."

Let's go deeper. The man gets fined, and the greater penalty for him at least is that he has to keep his wife and can never divorce her. Boy, I wouldn't want my daughter to be that girl. We'll come back to this once we find out what happens if the girl was the deceiver (verses 20 and 21).

In that case (i.e. she was not a virgin), the girl is led to her father's doorway and the men (doesn't even say the elders) would stone her to death.  That's a big consequence. Why? Because "she committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father's house" and "thus shall you purge evil from among you".

So why the harsher treatment? Why does the man get off with fine and talking to, and she gets stoned to death? Is this fair? At face value, it may seem totally unfair. But then consider the crimes involved. The man's crime was a) a change of mind about his new wife, and b) lying. Granted, certainly the second crime was breaking one of the Ten Commandments, and the first was breaking God's intention for married couples that God set up way back in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Marriage was to be forever until one of the parties would die. And by the penalties imposed on the man, this was to be the case. That left the 'lying' to be dealt with (perhaps by the imposed chastisement and the financial fine).

Now, let's look at what the woman did in this case. By showing she wasn't a virgin, she had actually been found to have committed a sin earlier, went on pretending she had not, did it while still being part of her parents' household, and tried to get away with it. God saw this as actually equivalent to her "being the harlot" something that had no welcome in His plans for Israel or the world. The crimes are, I believe, very different. Thus the penalties are very different. Later on in this passage we will see that where equal penalties are deserved, God plays no favorite between male and female.

(I also want to point out here that there may well be other cases where the man is the one that acts out as the male prostitute or gigolo, and in those cases, the more appropriate penalties would be in order for him, in the land of Israel.)

In verse 22, if a man and a woman are found lying together and they are not married, guess what -- they both "shall die" to "purge the evil from Israel". No gender favoritism here. Both broke the commandment and both suffer the consequences. Of course, this is no longer the case in our western society. Sadly, marriage no longer seems to be the criteria for sleeping with someone else.

In verse 23, we have the case of an engaged woman who sleeps with another man, and they are found out, they both are to be stoned. The woman is stoned because she didn't cry out for help and the man is stoned because he violated his neighbor's wife. (Being betrothed to someone or engaged to them, was the same for Israelites as being married to them in terms of intentions.)

In verses 25-26, we read that if that scenario took place in a secluded area (e.g. a field) only the man should be stoned.  Wait, is this reverse favoritism from God?  Not at all. God considers circumstances (often more-so than we do). God looks at the sin and in this case He finds that two facts are different from the previous case in verses 23-24. Here, we have the fact that the man "forces" the girl into sex -- that is, he rapes her. We also have the fact that this is not "in the city" but rather "in the field" where the girl even if she had called out, there would be no one to hear her and save her. Those two things make a big difference. The text says "there was no sin on the girl's part worthy of death".

The lesson for us is not be too quick to judge someone else's sin unless we are one hundred percent certain of the circumstances. Even then best to leave it to God. 

Verses 28 and 29 talk about two excited younger people (the girl being a virgin) who sleep together and are found out. The fine for the man is 50 shekels to be paid to the girl's father and also he had to marry the girl without being able to divorce her in the future. Why 50 and not 100 as before? Perhaps because there was no deceit involved, only action that should not have taken place, and the marriage could still be saved.

Finally, in the last verse (vs. 30) of this rather well-packed chapter we get the law that says don't sleep with  your father's wife.  Remember in those days men had more than one wife, so your father's wife may not have been your own biological mother -- it could have been your step-mother as we know the term today, or just one of the several wives a man had in his harem. In any case, the Israelites were told not to do it, although no penalty for doing so is recorded here. Of course, the consequences of such action would soon be made clear to all involved.

In conclusion, throughout Scripture -- both in the Old and the New Testaments, God takes marriage very seriously. If there is one area where the world has strayed far away from God's teachings, it is the area of marriage, sex, adultery, divorce, and commitment between a man and woman.  Most of us don't need to look too much further from our own family or relatives, or even our closest friends these days to see the outcomes of that straying. If you are at all like me, you may want to stop for a moment and reflect how drastically different all of humanity would be today if we had all stuck to God's intentions for us with respect to these areas of life. We as individuals, can still follow God in this matter going forward, no matter what we may have done in the past.

Tell us what you think.

If you like the way we're studying Scripture, why not subscribe to our posts by providing us with your email? You can do that to the right of this column in the 'Subscribe to' section.   You can also search our earlier studies in the 'Blog Archive' section below that.  Finally, please encourage others to study along with us and share this with your family and friends. -- Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

If You Think God Doesn't Care About the Minutae in our Lives, Think Again

[ courtesy of, please visit timbercreekfarmer.com ]

Taking Care of Small Business God's Way (or more laws about minor things) -- Deuteronomy 22:6-12

How many times have we heard someone say, "Just trust God with that" and the response has been, "I don't think God cares about things like this"? Well, this passage is intended to convince us that God does care about more than we think he cares about. Maybe He is less involved in some things than others, but He certainly has an eye for details.

Let's look at some of those laws dealing with minor things that Moses shares from God.

Believe it or not verses 6 and 7 deal with a mama bird and her babies. She is huddling over them. To brood eggs is to sit upon the eggs for the temperature regulation necessary for safe, successful hatching. First we note that God has taken care of that very detail in the way He arranged for their creation and multiplication. But the verses go on to say that if you see such a bird family, and for some crazy reason, you need to take the eggs or the baby birds, fine, but don't touch the mother. Let her live. Let her be. Let her reproduce again. Because if you don't, the verse goes on to say, "it won't be well with you, and your days won't be prolonged."  Wow.  That's some promise for such a minor offence, isn't it? But a law is a law.

David Guzik says, with this law that many Jewish commentators refer to as the smallest, or least of all the commandments, "God simply and plainly commanded kindness to animals". But notice the penalty it carries if it is not followed. God doesn't fool around when it comes to the care of His creations. He goes on to quote:

"Puritan commentator Matthew Poole wrote on this, "Partly for the bird's sake, which suffered enough by the loss of its young; for God would not have cruelty exercised towards the brute creatures; and partly for men's sake, to restrain their greediness and covetousness, that they should not monopolize all to themselves, but might leave the hopes of a future seed for others.""

Guzik also goes on to ask a most obvious question:

"What possible connection can there be between showing kindness to a bird's nests and eggs and little baby birds and national survival?

i. First, because obedience to the smallest of God's commands brings blessing. It puts us into a properly submissive relationship to Him, that this always brings blessing to us.

ii. Second, because kindness and gentleness in the small things often (but not always) speaks to our ability to be kind and gentle in weightier matters. If someone is cruel to animals, not only is that sin in itself, but they are also much more likely to be cruel to people. If Israel allowed such cruelty to flourish, it would harm the nation." (Remember the kid in the neighborhood that liked to drown little helpless birds? No loving parent had cared enough to tell him or her how and why this was wrong. Sometimes we see kids like that grow up to cause much greater harm to humanity.

Matthew Henry adds a third lesson from these two verses about birds:

"It further intimates that we must not take advantage against any, from their natural affection and the tenderness of their disposition, to do them an injury. . . . The remembrance of this may perhaps, some time or other, keep us from doing a hard or unkind thing to those whom we have at our mercy." (We need to remember this when we are working with or reaching out to others who are not like us in how and to whom they show their affections.)

The next section of the passage, verses 8-12 covers a host of other minor laws:

Verse 8 tells us, as Chuck Smith puts it, "When you build a new house, and you're putting on the roof, you've got to put supports around so no one falls off the roof and gets hurt while they're working on your house." Yes, God cares about you not being sued -- just do the right thing.  Follow the safety rules.

On this verse, Robert Jamieson gives us more of the explanatory reason: "The tops of houses in ancient Judea, as in the East still, were flat, being composed of branches or twigs laid across large beams, and covered with a cement of clay or strong plaster. They were surrounded by a parapet breast high. In summer the roof is a favorite resort for coolness, and accidents would frequently happen from persons incautiously approaching the edge and falling into the street or court; hence it was a wise and prudent precaution in the Jewish legislator to provide that a stone balustrade or timber railing round the roof should form an essential part of every new house."

Verse 9 says don't intermix your seeds when planting in a field -- because one seed will defile the other. Yes, God cares about your produce.

On this verse, Robert Jamieson provides the science behind the law: "This also was directed against an idolatrous practice, namely, that of the ancient Zabians, or fire-worshippers, who sowed different seeds, accompanying the act with magical rites and invocations; and commentators have generally thought the design of this and the preceding law was to put an end to the unnatural lusts and foolish superstitions which were prevalent among the heathen. But the reason of the prohibition was probably deeper: for those who have studied the diseases of land and vegetables tell us, that the practice of mingling seeds is injurious both to flowers and to grains. "If the various genera of the natural order Gramineae, which includes the grains and the grasses, should be sown in the same field, and flower at the same time, so that the pollen of the two flowers mix, a spurious seed will be the consequence, called by the farmers chess. It is always inferior and unlike either of the two grains that produced it, in size, flavor, and nutritious principles. Independently of contributing to disease the soil, they never fail to produce the same in animals and men that feed on them" [WHITLAW]." And now you know the rest of the story behind God's thinking.

Verse 10 says when you're plowing a field, don't use one ox and and one donkey -- either two oxen or two donkeys, but not one of each. They don't get along.  Yes, God cares about your productivity and travail in your work.

Jamieson gives us more insight:

"Whether this association, like the mixture of seeds, had been dictated by superstitious motives and the prohibition was symbolical, designed to teach a moral lesson ( 2Cr 6:14 ), may or may not have been the case. But the prohibition prevented a great inhumanity still occasionally practised by the poorer sort in Oriental countries. An ox and ass, being of different species and of very different characters, cannot associate comfortably, nor unite cheerfully in drawing a plough or a wagon. The ass being much smaller and his step shorter, there would be an unequal and irregular draft. Besides, the ass, from feeding on coarse and poisonous weeds, has a fetid breath, which its yoke fellow seeks to avoid, not only as poisonous and offensive, but producing leanness, or, if long continued, death; and hence, it has been observed always to hold away its head from the ass and to pull only with one shoulder." I didn't know all that, did you?  But hey God knew for He created these two animals that way.

Verse 11 says don't wear wool and linen together.  Here's Jamieson again:

"Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to have had a further meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that "wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister" [WHITLAW]."  Yes, God cares about how your clothes treat you. He wants you comfortable.

And then verse 12 reminds the Israelites that they need to make themselves tassels on the four corners of their garment.  This command, says Guzik, was also to distinguish Israel from their pagan neighbors; in this way, an Israelite man was immediately known by the clothes he wore.

In David Guzik's opinion, each of these laws was meant to separate Israel from her pagan neighbors. He writes:  "When God commands Israel to not do these things, it isn't so much for the sake of the combinations themselves, but so Israel would not imitate the pagan, occultic customs of their neighbors."

Guzik continues:

"As Paul says, Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)"

Now does that all mean that God cares whether you buy car A or car B? Does He care whether your team wins the championship or whether the other team wins it?  Here's what I think.

We know from our study above that God does care about the way you take care of little things. But notice the onus is on you to do things God's way. It is not on His doing things the way you want them to be without you having to do your homework.

I think God is totally aware of what you are going to buy or which team is going to win a particular game. But I believe He would expect you to do your homework, consider your resources, and your needs, and make an appropriate decision,  As far as your team wining the game goes, as a minimum God is not apt to let a team that has not practiced, gets drunk the night before, or has inter-squad jealousies, win a game. Unless of course, God wants to teach the other team an even stronger lesson in which God may let your unpracticed, still drunk, and squabbling team, win. In that case, most observers would call it a miracle.

So, in conclusion -- God does care about the little things in your life. He is fully aware of them. He expects you to do your part. His plan takes more into account than you can see or imagine.

If you like the way we're studying Scripture, why not subscribe to our posts by providing us with your email? You can do that to the right of this column in the 'Subscribe to' section.   You can also search our earlier studies in the 'Blog Archive' section below that.  Finally, please encourage others to study along with us and share this with your family and friends. -- Ken.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.