Continuing a chronological Bible study:
(Deuteronomy 21:1) “If anyone is found slain in the land which the LORD your God gives you to possess it, lying in the field, and it is not known who has slain him, (2) Then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are round about him that is slain."
Moses continued reviewing the laws of God as he had been doing throughout the book of Deuteronomy. Here he discussed what was to be done if a man was found slain in their promised land of Canaan, and it was not known who had killed him. The elders and judges of the people were to measure how far the slain man was from the surrounding cities.
(3) “And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain man will take a heifer which has not been worked and which has not pulled with a yoke.
The elders of the city found to be nearest the slain man were to take a heifer that had not been worked and had not yet pulled with a yoke.
(4) "And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer to a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley."
The elders of the city nearest the slain man were to take the heifer to a rough valley, an uncultivated place neither plowed nor sown, and they were to either break its neck, or cut off its head at the neck. It's unclear in the original text what exactly was meant, but it certainly meant to kill the heifer there in the rough valley. There is much symbolism in this act. First, this was not a sacrifice, but an execution of a representative for the murderer who could not be found. The fact that this representative had not ever pulled with a yoke might be seen as a symbol of the murderer who could not bear the yoke of God's laws. A rough and uncultivated valley was chosen for the blood of the murderer who had shed innocent blood that would have forever polluted the land. Although not a proper sacrifice, this act of killing the heifer representing the murderer, was a type of atonement for the innocent blood that had been shed in the land. You could also see some symbolism of Christ who was brought low to earth to atone for our sins. Free from labor and the yoke could represent the freedom of Christ from the yoke of sin and the workings of it. Christ descended from heaven, took on the sins of the world, and was killed, shedding his innocent blood for atonement of those sins.
(5) "And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried."
The priests who were from the tribe of Levi were to come forth for the Lord had chosen them for His service, and it would be by their word that controversies between men and whatever strokes or injuries might be made by one to another would be tried.
(6) “And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley. (7) And they shall answer and say, 'Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it.'"
Verse 6 does confirm that the heifer was beheaded. The elders of that city that was nearest to where the slain man had been found were to wash their hands over the heifer that had been beheaded in the rough valley, professing that they had not shed innocent blood nor did they know who had shed the innocent blood in the first place.
(8) "'Be merciful, O LORD, to Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to Your people of Israel's charge.'"
The priests would pray to God to have mercy on His children of Israel and not to charge them as guilty of the shedding of innocent blood.
(9) "So shall you put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD."
Indeed, thusly, they would put off the punishment from the shedding of innocent blood that polluted their land when they did as God had instructed they do.
(10) “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive, (11) And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her, that you would have her as your wife, (12) Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails."
Moses spoke of a war other than one with the Canaanites, because there would be no captives among the seven nations that the Lord would have His people completely destroy. In other wars, they were to spare the women, children, and cattle (Deuteronomy 20:14). If in one of these wars, after the Lord had delivered their enemy into their hands, if one saw among the captives a beautiful woman whom he desired to have as a wife, it appears he was permitted that. He could bring her into his house, but she was to shave her head and trim her nails. Although intermarriage among the heathen nations was discouraged and in some cases forbidden as with the Canaanite nations, if a woman was captive, she was totally within her husband's power and would be converted to the Israelite religion. Shaving her head and cutting her nails might be for a form of purification, but it was more likely that it made the woman less desirable. There was a custom among the heathen nations of women adorning their nails to make them desirable for men to look at and then take and handle them, bringing them into the heathen woman's web, so to speak.
(13) "And she shall put the clothes of her captivity off her, and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; and after that you shall go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife."
The captive woman was also to remove the clothing she had worn when she was taken captive as those might have also been part of what had made her so appealing. She was to remain in her captor's house for a full month, allowed to mourn her parents and her family, and all she was forced to leave behind, as the sense of the word translated as "mother" can also mean "parting". After that month, the man could then go in to her, be intimate with her, and make her his wife. This appears to provide a cooling off period for the lust of the man. The woman was not to be abused and raped in the heat of the moment. She was allowed time for her emotions and after a month, the man could be intimate with her and make her his wife.
(14) “And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will, but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not make merchandise of her, because you have humbled her."
If after that month's cooling off period, the man decided he really didn't want to marry the woman after all, but it had just been the heat of the moment, then he was to set her free. He was forbidden to try to sell her or use her for any gain; just because she had been his captive for a month, humiliated by being shaved and all adornments removed, she was not to be treated as an object.
(15) “If a man has two wives, one beloved and the other hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated, (16) Then it shall be, when he makes his sons inherit that which he has, he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, who is indeed the firstborn."
Moses then moved to the subject of a man with two wives, where one was much loved, and the other not so much. If both wives had borne him children, and the firstborn had come from the wife who was not loved, the man was forbidden to favor his beloved wife's child over the rightful firstborn heir. Although polygamy was allowed, it was not God's way, one man and one woman becoming one flesh. This passage demonstrates one of the many ways that having more than one wife can complicate things. There would always be a favorite or preferred wife, and it would most often cause envy and constant strife in the household, even more so when there were children involved. Who doesn't think their child is the best and most deserving? God's law in this case said that the firstborn was the firstborn, regardless of affection. Interestingly, previous to this law being enacted, birthright was given to Joseph, the oldest son of Rachel, the most beloved wife of Jacob, before Reuben, son of Leah, the less loved wife, who was actually the firstborn. However, this was God's appointment and Jacob had been tricked into marrying Leah. His desire all along had been Rachel. This law was enacted because of the hardness of men's hearts, just as Jesus said about divorce in Matthew 19:8. A provision was made for the case, but it was not God's intention from the beginning.
(17) “But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated as the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."
Continuing the thought started in verse 15 above, the man with two wives was required to acknowledge his true firstborn son, even if he was the son of the wife who was not loved. That firstborn was the beginning of his father's strength, or his family that became larger and strengthened by the addition of the firstborn. The actual firstborn was to have his birthright privilege, which was a double portion of his father's estate.
(18) “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not hearken to them, (19) Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place; (20) And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ (21) And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he dies; so shall you put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
In the case of a stubborn and rebellious son who would not obey his father and his mother, even after they had chastened him, and refused to listen to them, the parents were to take hold of their son and bring him to the elders of his city. There they would declare their son stubborn and rebellious and unwilling to obey his parents, which would necessarily find him unwilling to obey any authority. From the beginning, in one of the Ten Commandments, God required that children honor and obey their parents (Exodus 20:12), and abusing them mentally, as well as physically, was worthy of death (Exodus 21:15, 17 and Leviticus 20:9). The parents would declare the son's sins to the elders, and all the men of his city would stone him with stones until he died. In that way, the parents and all the people would put evil away from Israel, and all the people would hear of it and take heed. Wow! It seems so harsh to us now. However, when you consider God's commandment, and His laws since Exodus that a rebellious son was worthy of death, sons would necessarily understand their requirements under the civil law and more importantly, the Law of God, which were one and the same at this time. If, knowing this, they were still so stubborn and evil, it could be assumed they would never change their rebellious hearts. If such a law were executed now, it would certainly do a lot to destroy the wicked in the world. We must love God with all our hearts and souls, and as Jesus said, "...he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." Such hate and rebellion against God is of Satan and cannot be tolerated. Though we don't go around stoning our rebellious kids in this day and age, we should remember Who comes first in our lives.
(22) "And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, (23) His body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that your land not be defiled, which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance."
The hanging mentioned here is most likely not a strangulation by hanging by the neck, but a suspension as on a cross or tree or the like. Additionally, from what I have read, crucifixion was not a normal mode of execution, but that after criminals were stoned to death, they were sometimes hung afterward as an additional public shame and as a visual reminder to the people of what would happen if they committed a sin worthy of death; they would not only hear and fear, but would see and fear. However, if a criminal was hung on a tree, he was not to be left all night, but was to be taken down and buried that day. The reason given is that the land not be defiled. This can be taken literally; allowing rotting bodies to hang indefinitely would certainly pollute the land. Also the criminal was said to be accursed by God, so again, allowing cursed things to hang around indefinitely defiled the land. As a person was considered unclean who touched a dead body, so the land would be unclean that allowed hanging dead bodies in it. The law called for the criminal's life, and once that life was taken, the law was fulfilled, and no more was required. This seems to include an element of mercy for even the worst of criminals and a respect for the human body. Most notably, this law was symbolic, and in these particular words by Moses, prophetic of the coming Christ who "redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Galatians 3:13). As the criminal's body fulfilled the law in his case, so Christ's hanging on a cross was indication and proof of His being made sin and a curse for His people and that He bore the curse of the law for their sins, and so the law was ultimately fulfilled. The taking down of the body before sunset and burying him, signified the removal of the curse from the land, as Christ's body taken down and placed in the tomb signified the removing of the curse from Him and His people for whom He suffered, and redeeming them from the curse of the law. The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, etc., made an additional point that being accursed of God proclaimed him "under the curse of God as much as any external punishment can. They that see him thus hanging between heaven and earth, will conclude him abandoned of both, and unworthy of either." This certainly applied to the death of Christ who was forsaken by God in that moment He took all our sins upon Him, but declared His work finished upon His death. No more was required to fulfill the law, and of course, He was not left hanging between heaven and earth, but was risen. More words from the TSK, "...the law was satisfied... It demanded no more. Then he, and those that are his, ceased to be a curse. And as the land of Israel was pure and clean when the body was buried, so the church is washed and cleansed by the complete satisfaction which Christ thus made."
Once again, I am in awe of how often Jesus Christ appears in the Old Testament!
No comments:
Post a Comment