Kidnapping, Pandemics, & Collecting Debts -- More Lessons from the O.T. -- Deuteronomy 24:7-13

[ source: consumer affairs.com -- check them out ]

Is There Anything God Didn't Think Of? More Rules To Live By -- Deuteronomy 24:7-13

In this passage of Deuteronomy, God through Moses deals with three things.

1: Verse 7 tells us that kidnapping is non-starter. It is an evil act and there's no place for it among God's people. The penalty for those that deal with their kidnap victims violently or sell them is death. Of course today we try to negotiate the ransom with them. Makes for great movies. Now I must admit that the part of the verse that presents some difficulty is the part that refers to kidnappers who kidnap a "countryman from the sons of Israel".  This begs the question as to whether the kidnapping of others other than Israelites, is okay. One could also ask what was the penalty for those who kidnap someone but don't treat them violently or sell them. Today, we get a lot of that as people kidnap children because they can't have any themselves and just want a child.  What do we do with them?

Well, the issues and the answers or solutions, can well have that too-often used phrase these days apply to them --  "it's complicated".  So much else has gone wrong in a society or a person's life before we even get to that stage.

Bottom line here is that people of God do not kidnap neither do they condone it. Matthew Henry may be of some help here as he writes:

"It was not death by the law of Moses to steal cattle or goods; but to steal a child, or a weak and simple man, or one that a man had in his power, and to make merchandize of him, this was a capital crime, and could not be expiated, as other thefts, by restitution-so much is a man better than a sheep, Mt. 12:12. It was a very heinous offence, for, 

• 1. It was robbing the public of one of its members.
• 2. It was taking away a man's liberty, the liberty of a free-born Israelite, which was next in value to his life.
• 3. It was driving a man out from the inheritance of the land, to the privileges of which he was entitled, and bidding him go serve other gods, as David complains against Saul, 1 Sa. 26:19."

2: The next thing dealt wth in this short passage is the issue of infections or for our purposes (in 2021) a pandemic. This is covered in verses 8-9.

We are to take the necessary precautions and be careful. We are to diligently observe all that we are asked to do and are taught to do. So, does that mean we are to follow what our local and national governments are demanding of us with respect to Covid-19?  Maybe. But not so fast. Read the rest of verse 8. It clearly states two things. First, these instructions are to come from the Levitical priests. They ran the show in those days. Who has replaced them today?  Is it the local mayor or the state/provincial leader, or the president/prime minister?  Or is it our church leaders? I'll leave that for you to decide as you study this portion. And the second, most important condition, regardless of who represents the Levitical priests today, is this: Their instructions would be as God commanded them through Moses. Now if you believe that today's priest replacement (church or otherwise) meets that second condition, by all means, go for it.  Do exactly as they say.

In either case, there may be a good reason to do. God reminds us of what happened to Miriam as the Israelites were making their way out of Egypt. You will remember Miriam and her brother Aaron as being rebuked by God for criticizing Moses on account of his "Cushite" wife. As a result, Miriam was punished for a week with leprosy.

3: The last of three areas discussed in our text today is that of collecting debts. Verse 10 says when you are collecting either the collateral or the debt, don't enter the debtor's home. We're to stay outside and respect his privacy. He is to bring us the pledge of what he owes.

David Guzik writes extensively on this:

"God does not condemn the principle of taking a pledge, only commanding that it be received humanely. The idea of taking collateral for a loan is valid, because it encourages personal responsibility in the one receiving the loan. You shall not keep his pledge overnight: Assuming the pledge was something to keep the man warm (such as a garment or a blanket, which would often be the only pledge a poor man could make), the pledge had to be returned so the man could use it to keep warm overnight. "The Jews in several cases did act contrary to this rule, and we find them cuttingly reproved for it by the Prophet Amos, chap. ii. 8." (Clarke)"

Robert Jamieson says it this way:

"The course recommended was, in kind and considerate regard, to spare the borrower's feelings. In the case of a poor man who had pledged his cloak, it was to be restored before night, as the poor in Eastern countries have commonly no other covering for wrapping themselves in when they go to sleep than the garment they have worn during the day."

Did you catch the twist for God's people? If the debtor is a poor person working hard to make ends meet and to provide for his family, and who has done all he could to put together what he owes you and gives it to you -- then, you person of God are not to keep it overnight. You can't "sleep" with it -- your godly conscious shouldn't allow it. In fact, when the sun goes down that very day, you are to take it right back to him and let him sleep with it (in the O.T. it was usually a warm cloak) and let him bless you for doing so. But above all that will count for "righteousness for you before the Lord your God."

That is powerful. You can't buy that kind of heart-felt sincere blessing from others or that kind of righteousness in the eyes of God. But that action of yours has to come from your own heart. It has to come from the realization that you are blessed far above what you deserve in this life, by God. And from a knowledge that has been well-engrained in your mind that you have been "blessed to be a blessing" to others.

Bottom line, we are to always be mindful of the other person's needs and above all, their dignity in any of these business relationships. Yes, it is business, but for the Christian, it is also about "our business with God".

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.

Pledges and Collaterals (and Today's Demands For Rent Increases) -- Here's How or How Not According to Deuteronomy 24:6

[ source: alternet.org -- check them out ]

A Rule on Lending In Order To Get Along Civilly -- Deuteronomy 24:6-13

Verse 6 talks about 'collaterals' (something pledged as a security for repayment of a loan, to be forfeited in the event of a default). There are certain kinds of pledges we are not to ask for or to take. In this case, the text refers to those as a "handmill" or an "upper millstone". You may ask why? Well, the verse goes on to explain because taking one of those is like taking someone's life as a pledge.  Really? How's that?

First, let's look at how Robert Jamieson explains the meaning of the words: "The "upper" stone being concave, covers the "nether" like a lid; and it has a small aperture, through which the corn is poured, as well as a handle by which it is turned. The propriety of the law was founded on the custom of grinding corn every morning for daily consumption. If either of the stones, therefore, which composed the handmill was wanting, a person would be deprived of his necessary provision."

Now more on the why. Here's Chuck Smith on this: "Now the reason why you weren't to take a millstone as a pledge is because people, actually that was their livelihood. You used your millstone to grind your wheat and all. If you don't have your millstone you're out of bread, you know. So you weren't allowed to take these as a pledge for a debt."

David Guzik adds: "This warns Israel against taking advantage of each other in times of great need. We must take care that we never unfairly profit from the poverty or difficulty of others. . .  This command forbids the taking of collateral that would take away a man's ability to provide for his family, and get himself out of debt."

Bottom line, we are not to be taking advantage of someone today through usury. If interest is to be charged at all (and remember the Israelites were forbidden to demand interest from each other), we are to be reasonable in what we charge, ensuring that the person to whom we lend to today will not be burdened to the point of having to declare bankruptcy or being unable to feed his family tomorrow because of our demands.

I am reminded of the circumstances that many store-owners and families are faced with today in the midst of all the lockdowns because of how our governments have chosen to fight the virus. Many small business owners who rent their premises cannot make ends meet. Many people are losing their jobs and in spite of government funds to assist them, they are not earning what they earned prior to all this. So, the cost of rent for stores and for housing goes up, but the funds are not there for many to be able to handle them. For those who own homes, mortgages still have to be paid. So, the question for us is what would the Bible have us do with respect to those people who have been hardest hit, but still need to meet their rent and/or mortgage obligations?

First, I do realize that many are not in a position to help especially if they are only administrators of property rather than owners. Also if you work for a bank that holds a mortgage, you'd have to be pretty high up to change the rules for all those holding mortgages and you'd have to do it fairly and equitably or you may have other problems.

I'm not talking about these folks here.  I'm talking about those of us who can make a decision to go easier on renters and those who owe us monthly payments on loans of any kind. Although, one could argue that if you are in the former group, you could speak to your bosses and see if you could soften their terms for the sake of others. Or alternatively, you may have one or two debtors on whose behalf you may wish to personally pick up some of the hardship. Again, you were blessed to be a blessing. Just saying.]

But for those of us who can make a difference directly because we are the building owners or we hold the loan, here are some ideas:

May I suggest that you approach folks with sincere concern and gentleness. This is much harder for them than it is for you. Much is at stake for them whereas usually for you, it may simply mean less profit for a certain period. And if you're a Christian, you need to keep in mind Who it is that enables you to have property to rent or funds with which to hold a mortgage on someone else's living accommodations. And as mentioned above, like Abraham, you were blessed to be a blessing. Act like it. Talk to these people. See what can be worked out. See how much of a burden you can take off their back for a given period of time.  Care not just about getting your monthly due, but care about the individual and especially their families.

Perhaps I've said enough. But let me tell you that I also have a renter couple and I practice what I preach. Please join me in this or share this with someone who can also bless others in this way during these difficult financial times.  I can't tell you for certain if God had this time in history in mind when He established those rules for the Israelites, but I can tell you this -- God's rules are always solid and they make for a better life for all involved, no matter the age. 

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 O.T. Rules About Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage Can Teach Us Today (Deuteronomy 24:1-5)

[ courtesy focusonthefamily.com -- check them out ]

Some Decisions Are Not Easily Reversible; Some Not At All -- Deuteronomy 24:1-5

In the first five verses of chapter 24 of Deuteronomy we are presented with an Old Testament solution to the very same marital issues that arise all too often today in the 21st century.

Here to begin with are commands and rules to follow when someone gets married and then finds his wife (in this case it is a wife, but I am sure we can switch the gender if we tried hard enough to get the principle the text is driving at), no longer desirous.  We do need to be careful to notice that the so-called loss of favor isn't based on a pure whim or mood -- it requires that the man find "some indecency in her". Could this be adultery? Perhaps. Could it be that she was not a virgin when he married hers? Likely not as this was dealt with earlier in Deuteronomy 22, verses 13 and following. Could it be any other 'indecency'?  Perhaps. I believe as a minimum, it would have to be something that the elders of the city would agree was indeed eligible for the action that was required.

In such cases, the husband was to write her a certificate of divorce, actually put it in her hands, and send her out of his house. Things were so much easier back then. Today, with all the rights afforded to married people, it is often hard to get people to leave the matrimonial home and a divorce document often requires many legalities and much time. Often lawyers are required along with thousands of dollars being spent to determine who gets what upon the separation. What David Guzik reminds us of is that if there is to be a divorce, it must be a legal matter with a certificate of divorce.  It is not something done lightly or easily, and it is permanent as we see below. Of course, for those living together and not married, physical separation is easier today, but still there are many legal considerations as to rights.

Now verse 2 is interesting because it continues, "and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife". The question arises in my mind, what happens if she doesn't leave? Well, again, I would imagine that the elders would get involved. They would determine the legitimacy of the so-called indecency, and declare a verdict and the action to be taken. This may or may not involve the two sets of parents, and/or some force to remove her. It may have also involved a financial settlement, as is often the case today.

Jesus, many years later, was challenged on this very law when he was asked what is a valid reason for divorce. He was really being asked, "what constitutes marital uncleanliness".  He replied, "If a man puts away his wife and marries another except it be for fornication, he causes her to commit adultery and whoso marries her commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32) And Jesus recognized that He was going against what Moses had taught in Deuteronomy, when He goes on to say in Matthew 19:8, "in the beginning it was not so".  That is to say, from Adam and Eve's time there was to be no divorce, but God allowed Moses to change that, "because of your hardness of heart" (Matthew 19:8). That settles that for me when it comes to what God 'approves' with respect to divorce. At the same time, it is possible, that because of our current (even worse) hardness of hearts, He 'tolerates' it when we divorce for other reasons. Please note there is a big difference between what God approves and what God tolerates because He loves us, but do not for one moment think that the latter does not make Him very sad.

We can't discuss this topic of divorce without asking ourselves the question, "can a divorced woman (or man) re-marry under either the O.T. or N.T. views of marriage and divorce? Matthew Henry is very direct on this when he writes: "That being divorced it was lawful for her to marry another husband, v. 2. The divorce had dissolved the bond of marriage as effectually as death could dissolve it; so that she was as free to marry again as if her first husband had been naturally dead." You can agree or disagree, but I would ask you to consider if what Henry is suggesting was not the case, why would Moses and several passages in the N.T. even talk about remarriage? I personally believe that if a person is divorced, especially for reasons of adultery by the other party, they are free to remarry.

In any event, the woman remarries and in verse 3, one of two things happen: either the same thing happens with the second husband (this was some indecent woman a.k.a. a repeat offender) or the second husband dies. If either of those things happen, the first husband is not allowed to take her back as a wife. We may well propose that if a couple divorce, and neither of them marry, and they later come to their senses and believe they made an error (careful on that one), they are still free to remarry again.

I like what Guzik says about all this: "It seems that it might be a good thing for the first husband and wife to get back together. But this command is made because God wanted both marriage and divorce to be seen as serious, permanent things. One couldn't be married or divorced casually; it had to be carefully thought out because it was permanent. This law would also strengthen the second marriage; it would discourage a spouse from thinking they might as well just leave their second marriage and go back to their first partner." Good thought.

Chuck Smith is the first to admit (and Chuck Swindoll today joins him) along with others, that this does not mean God intends a person to stay in a marriage that was wrong from the beginning and is abusive. Smith writes, "I don't believe that God ever intended that marriage be a terrorized paranoia where you live in constant terror. I don't think that was God's intention for marriage, ever." One marriage for life is God's best for us. But when we screw that up and end up in an abusive relationship, God has agreed to a divorce under certain difficult circumstances.

What is interesting here is the reason as to why the first husband could not take the woman in these verses back as wife again. Simply because or "since she has been defiled". What is not clear is whether the defilement was due to the first husband, or in the case of the second divorce the second husband, or simply her own sin. The point being that any such defilement is an abomination to the Lord and there was to be no bringing of such sin into the land which God had given the Israelites as an inheritance (vs. 4).

The last verse in our passage, verse 5, takes us down another route, but albeit a more positive one. There is some good news. Take a wife, good man, and get a year off from having to serve in the army. Also no one can expect anything of you -- not your father, not your father-in-law, not your employer, not the state.  You are to spend the whole year giving "happiness" to the wife you have taken. Wow.  Today, few people I know get that privilege.  Some don't even get a one-week honeymoon. Sometimes people get married one day and are deployed for military service the next day. Things have certainly changed.

Guzik again: "This was God's way of honoring and blessing the marriage covenant. He allowed men who were newly married to be exempt from military or other state service for one year. Bring happiness to his wife: This is an important job for every husband. Even as before the LORD, we find our lives by losing them (Matthew 10:39), so a husband will find the most happiness if he will bring happiness to his wife. As the role of the husband in Ephesians 5 is described, we see that God emphasizes the essential oneness between husband and wife. The husband cannot make his wife happy without also bringing happiness into his own life. Conversely, he cannot bring misery into the life of his spouse without also bringing misery into his own life. A happy wife is the foundation for a happy home; a bitter or contentious wife makes for a miserable home. A continual dripping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike (Proverbs 27:15). Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, than in a house shared with a contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:9). Better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman (Proverbs 21:19)." So many have experienced the negative side of that; blessed are they that have experienced and are experiencing the positive side. But husbands if you're not, don't blame your wives. Reread Guzik's thoughts again and again; practice them until you get it right.

So what are these verses saying to us in this current decade? Here are some thoughts:

1. Don't rush to get married.

2. Know the person you are marrying as well as possible before you marry them. (No, that does not mean sleeping with them.)

3. Ask God if your plans of marriage are His plans for your life. 

4. Ask your real friends about the person you are thinking of marrying and listen to them if their reasons are valid.

5. Divorce is a last resort but don't allow yourself to be abused, especially physically, but also emotionally.

You can't believe how many times I have heard people in terrible marriages say to me "I rushed; I hardly knew them; I never consulted God; I should have listened to my friends and loved ones who warned me; and finally, I'm still being abused."

This passage in the O.T. that ties in very nicely with what Jesus and the apostle Paul said in the New Testament is here for a purpose. I encourage you, if you're not married, to think sincerely about your future marriage. If you are married and you are the abuser, change. If you are married and being abused by someone who is not actively and evidently changing, consider some tough love which may even include a time of separation or divorce.  But whatever you do, don't do it without God.

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 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.