Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Deuteronomy 17:1) “You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God a bull or sheep which has any blemish or defect, for that is an abomination to the LORD your God."
In the book of Deuteronomy Moses had been giving the people a review of God's laws before his death. God had told him he would die before stepping foot into the promised land, so he was preparing the people for life without his leadership. He continued now with the command that no sacrifice of any animal was to be offered that had a blemish or defect in it. The sacrifice was a symbol of the perfect blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Peter 1:19).
(2) “If there be found among you, within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you, a man or a woman who has wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing His covenant, (3) And has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, (4) And it be told you, and you have heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel-- (5) Then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone that man or woman with stones till they die."
Moses had previously reviewed the law that it was a capital crime to seduce others to idolatry (ch. 13), and here made the point it was no less a crime to be seduced. Whether he or she initiated the crime or was seduced by it, if any person was found to have gone off and served and worshiped other gods, he or she was guilty of that wicked crime and was to be put to death. Note that it had to be a sure and certain fact. A person who heard the rumor of the crime had to inquire diligently to determine if it was true and certain. When a person was found to be guilty, he or she was to be brought to the gate of the city where there was a public stoning. I believe the reason capital punishment was in the form of stoning was so that all people participated indicating their desire to rid their land of such wickedness. Also most noteworthy in this passage is the commandment against astrology. It is as clear as day that God condemned astrology which is the interpretation of the influence of the heavenly bodies on human affairs. Only God determines the fate of His creation; although they can make poor choices that steer their fate, God knows all and is in total charge of all. Looking to any other source for answers is idolatry and a wicked abomination in His sight.
(6) "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."
Time and time again we are told in scripture that a thing is established to be true if it is confirmed by at least two or three witnesses. For all capital crimes, including the aforementioned one, a person was not to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. How wise this is! When it is a case of "he said, she said", how can one know for certain the truth? Even before I knew this scripture, I recall being on an attempted murder trial jury in my twenties, and how I felt very uncomfortable condemning the defendant based on the word of only the victim, whose back was turned at the time of the attempt. There was really no other corroborating evidence, but there were those on the jury who believed the testimony of the victim was all that was needed. It was a very long deliberation for a week, and we were finally determined a hung jury. I remember being very upset about the whole ordeal because the prosecution never asked the right questions to get the truth! I felt if we the jury had asked some pertinent questions, we might have been able to determine the truth, but that's a whole 'nother story. However, as I type this now, I realize that that could have been intentional by the prosecutor. But why didn't the defense attorney ask those questions to positively clear his client? Either one or both were inept, or one was inept and the other wise to not to bring it up, but either way, I feel confident now in knowing how God would have judged this case, and I did the best I could. However, I do wish I had known scripture enough back then to quote to the Baptist preacher on our jury that we needed more than just the one witness to condemn that man.
(7) “The hands of the witnesses shall be the first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put the evil away from among you."
In the stoning of the condemned person, the witnesses were to cast the first stones, followed by all the people, signifying the common condemnation of the wickedness against God.
(8) "If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses."
This was spoken about what would be considered lower court judges. If there was a matter too difficult for them to judge, be it a capital case, a civil matter, or a criminal one, or any other matter within their gates or jurisdiction, then they were to bring their case to the place where the Lord would choose for His tabernacle.
(9) “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show you the sentence of judgment."
The case was to be brought to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who would be there in the day when the Lord had chosen where to place His name and have the cases of the people judged. The inferior judges bringing the cases would seek advice from the priests and the supreme court, if you will, and that court would advise how to sentence according to the law of God.
(10) "And you shall do according to the sentence which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall show you; and you shall observe to do according to all that they inform you."
The inferior court judges were required to pass sentence according to what the priests and the judge in God's appointed place directed. They were not only to observe what the supreme court said, but were to put it in practice, and not in certain things or circumstances only, but in everything they had told them relating to the case in question.
(11) “According to the sentence of the law in which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do; you shall not decline from the sentence which they shall show you, to the right hand, nor to the left."
The inferior judges were commanded to pronounce the sentence and follow through with what they were advised and taught by the priests and the higher court judge to do. The priests and that superior judge ruled and taught according to the law of God and His will and thus their rulings were to be carefully observed. The lower court judges were not to alter the judgment in preference to either side.
(12) "And the man who will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or to the judge, even that man shall die; and you shall put away the evil from Israel."
The man who acted presumptuously, the lower court judge, and was conceited in his own opinion and did not listen to the higher court that had been chosen to minister and represent the people's Lord God, that lower court judge was to be put to death to rid Israel of the evil rebellion against the law of God.
(13) “And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously."
All the people would hear what had happened to the presumptuous lower court judge and they would fear and respect the supreme court of God, and would not act as presumptuously.
(14) “When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and shall possess it and shall dwell in it, and shall say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ (15) You shall in any way set him king over you, whom the LORD your God shall choose; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother."
When the people had come into their promised land of Canaan and were in full possession of it and dwelling in it, and they decided they wanted a king to rule over them as other nations had, it was permissible by the Lord. However, the Lord was to choose their king from among their brethren; the people were not to have a king who was not from their nation and religion. How wise! It reminds me of our country choosing Muslims to be leaders whose ideals are in direct contrast to the country's laws they are supposed to uphold. I am not being racist against Muslims and suggesting they could never hold office here, but they would have to swear allegiance to our country and our laws; none of this swearing in on a Koran which makes no sense whatsoever. It's no particular prejudice against Muslims; it would be the same with a Communist Chinese or any such foreigner who would not uphold our laws. To be an American, and especially to lead America, one should pledge allegiance to America and denounce previous citizenship. Of course, all are free to practice their chosen religion, but they must assimilate and conform to our country's laws. That flies in the face of the universal one world order that so many desire these days, but that is why it can never work. Too many cultures are in direct conflict with others. God knows that, and the wisdom of the world is foolishness to Him (1 Corinthians 3:19).
(16) “But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses, forasmuch as the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’"
The chosen king was not to multiply horses for himself. It was not that he could not have a few horses, but generally horses were not routinely used for travel or agriculture, but mainly for chariots of war or for pride and grandeur. Neither reason was acceptable to the Lord. Multiplying horses for war might make a king put too much confidence in those outward things, or he might be tempted to use them to tyrannize his subjects. If he multiplied horses for the love of honor and splendor, that was prideful and again putting too much faith in things other than the Lord. Egypt abounded with horses, and was the principle source of them at that time. A king was never to send his people back to Egypt to help him multiply horses, for the Lord had told them they were not to go back to Egypt. It's not that the people were forbidden to ever go back to Egypt; the idea here is that they were not to return to the old pagan ways of Egypt. A regular trade and alliance with Egypt might cause the people to once again be tempted to engage in the idolatries of Egypt.
(17) “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."
A king was not to multiply wives as the lust of the flesh and the eye might cause his heart to turn away from God; also the love of money and riches would cause him to put faith in his wealth and might puff himself up with pride in himself.
(18) "And it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites."
When the king was settled on his throne, he was to write for himself a copy of the law in a book, from the original that was kept by the priests, the Levites. If this is to be taken literally, and he was to write it himself and not have a scribe do it, that would better imprint the law on his mind, which would seem the purpose of this instruction.
(19) “And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them, (20) That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment to the right hand, or to the left, to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel."
That copy of the law the king had made for himself was to remain with him always, and he was to read it all the days of his life, that he would know in his heart all the words of the law and perform them. He was to learn to fear and respect his Lord God that his heart not be puffed with pride and he feel superior to his brethren. He was to know the law and the commandments as given by God and he was not to twist them into more severe laws or more lenient ones, in order that he might prolong his days in his kingdom, and his children also, in the midst of Israel. I like the way John Wesley wrote of this in his Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:
"...the scriptures diligently read, are a powerful means to keep him humble, because they shew him in that, tho' a king, he is subject to an higher monarch, to whom he must give an account of all his administrations, and receive from him his sentence agreeable to their quality, which is sufficient to abate the pride of the haughtiest person in the world."
No comments:
Post a Comment