Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem and Gives Signs for the End

Continuing a Bible study of the gospels:

(Matthew 24:1) And Jesus went out and departed from the temple; and His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple.

At the end of the last chapter and post, Jesus had been lamenting over Jerusalem because He had come to save her, but she had rejected Him, and now she must suffer the consequences.  As He departed from the temple where He had been speaking, His disciples came to show Him all the buildings of the temple, which meant the temple walls themselves and the courts and porches, etc.  The historian Josephus described the walls of the temple and made them sound as if they were quite a site to see.  Some of the stones were 70 feet long and eight feet high!  The enormous stones were said to be white, either of marble, or beautifully painted with variegated colors.

(2) And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Verily, I say to you, there shall not be one stone left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Jesus asked His disciples if they could not consider what was going to happen to the temple.  At the time He spoke these things, no event could seem more improbable than the falling of the temple.  It was vast, rich, splendid, and oh so strong!  However, Jesus told them there was to come a time within their generation, He had said in the last chapter, that their temple would fall and there would not be even one stone left on top of another that had not been thrown down.

(3) As He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?"

Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives across from the temple where He could sit and have a full view of it.  His disciples came to Him privately, whether that means all the disciples came privately apart from the multitude, or only a few disciples broke away from the other disciples to talk to Him, scripture doesn't really say.  The account in Mark says that there were at least four disciples who came to Him, Peter, Andrew, James, and John.  They seem a bit confused as they asked when the destruction of the temple would be, and what the sign of Jesus's coming and the end of the world would be, as if they would all occur at the same time.

(4) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Take heed that no man deceives you. (5) For many shall come in My name, saying, 'I am Christ,' and shall deceive many."

Although this has always seemed an end-time prophecy, with the likes of the anti-Christ deceiving many, this is probably an answer relative only to the destruction of Jerusalem.  Jesus warned the disciples not to be deceived, that there would be many who would come claiming to be the Christ.  Indeed, there were historically recorded at least three so-called anti-Christs during the disciples' time.  Josephus wrote that the land was overrun with them, but there are three of whom we can be certain--Dositheus the Samaritan, Simon Magus, and Theudas.

(6) "And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not troubled, for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."

Once again, this sounds like a sign of the end times of the world, but taken in context of the question put to Him, I believe this regards the destruction and end of Jerusalem.  Also to repeat, the disciples probably did think that the end of Jerusalem was the end of the world and would bring the second coming of Christ.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Bible, wrote about many wars and rumors of war at that time:  "Under Cureanus the Roman governor, a sedition was raised on the day of the passover, in which twenty thousand perished; after that, in another tumult, ten thousand were destroyed by cut-throats: in Ascalon two thousand more, in Ptolemais two thousand, at Alexandria fifty thousand, at Damascus ten thousand, and elsewhere in great numbers. The Jews were also put into great consternation, upon hearing the design of the Roman emperor, to put up his image in their temple."  Jesus told His disciples not to be troubled, so as to leave the land or stop preaching, for all the things Jesus described would have to come to pass, but it would not yet be the end.  Jesus probably meant that the destruction of Jerusalem would not yet be at its end; however, He might have been telling them that the end of the world would not be at that time.

(7) "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places."

Once again, Dr. Gill wrote:  "And so it was, the Jewish nation rose up against others, the Samaritans, Syrians, and Romans: there were great commotions in the Roman empire, between Otho and Vitellius, and Vitellius and Vespasian; and at length the Romans rose up against the Jews, under the latter, and entirely destroyed them."  Regarding famines preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, Albert Barnes wrote in His Notes on the Bible, "There was a famine foretold by Agabus, which is mentioned by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Eusebius, and which was so severe in Jerusalem, Josephus says, that many people perished for want of food. Four times in the reign of Claudius (41-54 a.d.) famine prevailed in Rome, Palestine, and Greece."  The early Bible commentators I study agree there were also pestilences, "Raging epidemic diseases; the plague, sweeping off multitudes of people at once," wrote Barnes.  "It is commonly the attendant of famine, and often produced by it."  A pestilence is recorded as raging in Babylonia, A.D. 40 by the Jewish historian Josephus.  There is also one recorded in Italy, A.D. 66 by the Roman historian Tacitus.  Both of these took place before the destruction of Jerusalem.  Tacitus and others also wrote of earthquakes that took place in various places at that time.

(8) "All these are the beginnings of sorrows."

Jesus told His disciples these things He foretold were only the beginning of sorrows, suggesting far greater calamities were yet to come before the end.

(9) "Then they will deliver you up to be afflicted, and will kill you; and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake."

Jesus warned His very own disciples that they would be persecuted and killed, and hated by all nations for His name's sake.  Indeed, the disciples were beaten and imprisoned and even killed.  They would be hated by all nations just because they were followers of Christ!  Jesus had warned them of this back in the tenth chapter of Matthew when He sent them out in their Christian ministry.  However, He had also said in His beatitudes in chapter 5 that they rejoice and be exceedingly glad when they were persecuted for their reward in heaven would be great.

(10) "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another."

There would be many people including apostates who would fall away when things got difficult, and they would betray one another to save themselves.  They would hate one another; not that true Christians would hate their brethren, but apostates and those who never came to follow Christianity would hate each other and the true followers of Christ.

(11) "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

There would be many men pretending to be prophets or foretellers of future events.  The apostle Paul spoke of some of them in his letters, namely Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17).  Josephus wrote, "The tyrannical zealots who ruled the city suborned 'many false prophets' to declare that aid would be given to the people from heaven. This was done to prevent them from attempting to desert, and to inspire confidence in God."

(12) "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."

Because such false teaching and persecuting iniquity would abound, good people, even Christians, would become shy and suspicious of one another, and alienations would be created.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, stated it perfectly, "The devil is the accuser of the brethren, not only to their enemies, which makes persecuting iniquity abound, but one to another, which makes the love of many to wax cold."

(13) "But he who shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved."

Those who endured in the profession of faith in Christ through the tribulation and violent persecution by wicked men, and followed His pure and incorrupt doctrines to the end, would be saved.  Biblical commentators have differing opinions on what this form of saving would take.  Some have suggested they would be saved from the destruction of Jerusalem, while others say this means they will be ultimately saved in the end with their souls in eternal glory.  I always assumed it meant the latter, as in most all cases when this is written in the Bible.  However, Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, wrote, "It is very remarkable that not a single Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, though there were many there when Cestius Gallus invested the city; and, had he persevered in the siege, he would soon have rendered himself master of it; but, when he unexpectedly and unaccountably raised the siege, the Christians took that opportunity to escape."  That is a fact I never knew!  It reminds me of the six day war in 1967 when Israel was completely outnumbered and the odds totally against her, but she miraculously prevailed with very little loss as compared to her attackers.  There is no denying that throughout history little Israel has remained God's special people and He continues to protect and fight for her.

(14) "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations, and then the end will come."

It is really remarkable to me that this has always been seen as an end-time prophecy for us living now.  Perhaps it is, as God's word always seems to have multiple meanings; after all, the entire Bible is written for our learning.  I can hear even now Bible commentators declaring that now with the internet the gospel has indeed been preached throughout the world.  However, again taken in context, it appears that Jesus was just talking about the end of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  Indeed, we can see from Paul's writings that the gospel had indeed been preached to all the world as it existed at their time (Romans 1:8, Colossians 1:6, Colossians 1:23).

(15) "When you therefore see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), (16) Then let those who are in Judaea flee to the mountains."

Once again, I am struck by the fact that many have interpreted this abomination of desolation to still be coming, even though there is a parenthetical exhortation to really understand what is written.  The term "abomination of desolation" doesn't refer to just one thing; it means an "abominable desolation" of the holy city.  Jesus referenced Daniel's prophecy mentioned in several Old Testament verses, but perhaps most understandable is Daniel 9:27, "...he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."  Daniel's prophecy appears to be foretelling a desolate temple that no longer serviced the Lord and an overspreading of many abominations that made the holy city desolate.  Jesus tells His disciples that when they see this happening, those who are in Judaea should flee to the mountains.  Indeed, according to what was written by Adam Clarke in his commentary on verse 13 above, the Christians indeed escaped.

(17) "Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything from his house; (18) Neither let him who is in the field go back to take his clothes."

Jewish houses had flat roofs that were favorable places for resting.  Jesus warned that not only should the people flee, but they should do it without delay, not taking any time to go back for their things.

(19) "And woe to those who are with child and to those who are nursing in those days."

Jesus proclaimed woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers because they would not be able to make their escape as quickly as others.

(20) "But pray that your flight be not in the winter nor on the sabbath day."

The destruction was definitely coming.  Jesus did not urge prayer against that.  But He advised that they pray that their flight from Jerusalem not be in the winter when travel would be more difficult, or on the Sabbath when travel was prohibited and they might be seen by non-Christian Jews who would seek to punish them.

(21) "For then shall be great tribulation such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Jesus warned that there would be great tribulation the likes of which had never been seen since the beginning of the world.  Imagine, the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah and even more, their terrible bondage in Egypt, nothing compared to what was about to happen.  Jesus said there would never be tribulation as terrible as this again.  That is hard to imagine when one considers the Holocaust during Hitler's reign.  The historian Josephus indeed wrote that never had a city suffered so much during the destruction of Jerusalem.  Jesus had wept over the city knowing what was soon to happen to it.

(22) "And except those days be shortened, there would be no flesh saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened."

Jesus said that the days of the end siege would be shortened or else not one man could survive.  For His elect's sake, the Christians, the days would be shortened to leave a remnant, as God always does.  He never allows His people to be completely destroyed.  Josephus wrote that those who perished in the siege numbered 1,100,000, and that did not include those who were slain in other places.

(23) "Then if any man says to you, 'Lo, here is Christ!' or 'There,' do not believe it."

As the Jews expected the Messiah to deliver them from Roman oppression, they would be anxiously looking for Him during these calamities.  Some would proclaim to be Christ and would lure followers, but Jesus said not to believe them. 

(24) "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders so much so, that if it were possible, they would deceive the very elect."

Jesus said there would indeed arise men claiming to be Christ and false prophets claiming to deliver the people from the Romans.  They would show great signs and wonders that resembled miracles wrought by prophets.  Josephus wrote that they were sorcerers and magicians who led people out into the deserts and promised to work miracles to save them.  The great signs and wonders they would perform would be so great that they might have even deceived the elect, "if it were possible."  That is how wondrous those signs would be, but Christ's elect had seen Him, heard Him, and known Him, and would not be fooled.

(25) "Behold, I have told you before. (26) Therefore if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the desert,' do not go there; 'Behold, He is in the secret chambers,' do not believe it."

Whether Jesus meant that He had warned them before about false Christs, or whether He meant that He was telling them these things before they happened so that they would be aware and on guard, the desired result is the same.  They were not to believe any assertions that Christ was present during the destruction of Jerusalem.

(27) "For as the lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be."

To me it seems Jesus was saying that when He comes, just as lightning lights up the whole sky, so will His coming be; there will be no mistaking when He comes.  I think He was saying it so that they not be deceived by any other reports of Him, and also in answer to the second part of their question in verse 3 as to the sign of His coming and of the end of the world.  They thought it would all happen at the same time as the destruction of Jerusalem, but Jesus now answers how His coming would be.  It would not be in the various places people would claim Him to be, but there would be no doubt when He came.  However, many of the Biblical scholars I study suggest that what is meant is that He would be in the act of destroying Jerusalem, as the Roman army came in from the east and swept westward over the city.  I prefer my interpretation, but in whatever is meant, it can be said that Jesus would not be found in the city ready to deliver His people from the destruction; Jerusalem was going to be destroyed.

(28) "For wherever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together."

I believe Jesus was concluding His declaration that He would not be delivering Jerusalem from her fate.  She was already dead and the Roman eagles were coming for her.  It is written that the Roman armies indeed had eagles on their ensigns.

As this is a long chapter with much commentary, I will stop here in this post, and continue my study of the 24th chapter of Matthew in the next post.  In this first half of the chapter, Jesus has clearly answered the disciples' question about the signs of the coming end of Jerusalem.  

Jesus Teaches the Spirit of the Law and Perfect Love

Continuing a study of the Gospels:

(Matthew 5:21) "You have heard that it was said by them of old, 'You shall not kill, and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.'"

Jesus had gone up on a mountain to escape the crowd and had begun what is called the Sermon on the Mount.  He continued here.  He had told the disciples in the last post that He had not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but had come to fulfill them.  He had said in essence, that the scribes and Pharisees were no longer to be their rulers and teachers, but Moses and the prophets were still to be their rulers.  He reminded them of the law they had heard and had been taught to observe, that they shall not kill (Exodus 20:13).  This killing referred to murder, and the Mosaic law declared that anyone judged guilty of murder was to be put to death (Leviticus 24:21, Numbers 35:16).

(22) "But I say to you, that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; but whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire."

Jesus expounded on this law, not adding anything new, but teaching the full extent and true spiritual intent of the law.  He went to the heart of the matter, and said that whoever was angry with another without cause would be judged guilty of murder in his heart.  This judgment spoken of by Jesus would have to be the judgment of God, as it is not likely that the courts would judge the heart of man.  By His statement, Jesus sought to teach the spiritual intention of the law, and demonstrate how the scribes and Pharisees, with their strict legalistic interpretation of the word of the law, had corrupted the law and abused permissions that would be inevitably allowed by only a strict interpretation of only the words of the law.  

If the person angry with his brother without cause went on to voice this anger, and exclaim "Raca!" which was a term of contempt meaning a senseless, empty-headed man, then that anger in his heart was manifesting into something worthy of punishment by the Sanhedrin.  "You fool," which seems to our modern interpretation to mean the same as "raca," was actually commonly used to denote idolaters, and godless, wicked men.  When the anger or murder in the heart rose to that level, a person would be in danger of hell fire.  Jesus wasn't speaking of hell in this instance, but the original word was Gehennah of fire, and it referred to the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom.  That was the site where idolaters worshipped Molech and made their children pass through fire, and sometimes even burnt their children with fire in sacrifice to Molech.  Because this valley had been the scene of those fiery sacrifices, the Jews used the word for hell during this time.  However, after much study of this difficult verse, I don't believe that Jesus meant hell.  

Jesus had previously established that anyone angry with his brother without cause had committed murder in his heart.  The Jews at that time considered only actual murder a violation of the sixth commandment.  By using terms associated with punishment used in their laws, with which they were familiar, Jesus demonstrated a broader sense of the commandment.  When He spoke of "judgment", although I do believe there was a double meaning in that God indeed judged the heart, the term would have meant to the Jews at that time civil judgment by a panel of judges who judged smaller matters.  The "council" was the Sanhedrin that judged weightier matters; and the Gehennah of fire was where people were burned alive.  I believe Jesus was illustrating just how that anger without cause was already murder in the heart, left unchecked, growing to contempt, wickedness, then murder.  He compared the growing anger to levels of judgment in their government that the people understood to demonstrate that there was much more to the sixth commandment than just actual murder.

(23) "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, (24) Leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."

The Pharisees were intent on external acts of worship.  If they conformed to the rites of religious worship, no matter what hatred for their brother might be in their hearts, they felt they were just and righteous.  Jesus taught the heart of the matter.  Even if one was in the act of worship and offering at the altar, and remembered that someone had something against him, it was his duty to leave his offering and go be reconciled with his brother.  Note that he did not have to be the person with anger in his heart; if he knew someone had anger against him, it was his duty to reconcile the matter.  Evil was to be nipped in the bud.  Anger in the heart can lead to murder, and is actually judged as murder in the heart by God.  As Christians with love for one another, it is our duty to forgive and save another from that judgment as much as we are able.

(25) "Agree with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison."

I believe again this is Jesus's comparison of the growing anger in the heart to steps of civil dispute that men would understand.  One was to reconcile his differences with another quickly, while they were on the way, probably a reference to taking their matter to court, in Jesus's law analogy.  Once again, one was to nip evil in the bud.  Allowing a matter to fester, even if not in his own heart, but in his adversary's, brings much trouble and evil.

(26) "Verily, I say to you, you will by no means come out of there till you have paid the last penny."

Completing the thought begun in verse 25, Jesus was warning to do all possible to reconcile differences before they reached this level, because it cost so dearly and so completely.  One was not to let even someone else's anger against him fester and grow until it could not be satisfied until he had given all.  Consider what that does to the soul of the adversary.  One would be saving the soul of his brother from murder in his heart that would ultimately lead to much greater hatred and damage, if he would just reconcile his differences early.  Matthew Henry compared this passage to reconciliation to God through Christ.  While we are alive and on the way to His judgment seat after death, it's the time to reconcile with God through Jesus Christ; once we are dead, it is too late, and we truly will have given all, eternal life with God in heaven.

(27) "You have heard that it was said by them of old time, 'You shall not commit adultery.'"

Jesus turned to the subject of the seventh commandment against adultery.  Just like the commandment against murder, the Pharisees looked at this commandment in the strictest sense, and considered only the act of actual adultery as unlawful, so that it had no respect to acts of fornication, or lustful thoughts, words, and actions.  They felt justified by being able to say they were not adulterers.

(28) "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Once again, Jesus taught the heart of the matter.  He went behind the actual deed to the early stages in the heart when a lustful look might inflame passions that lead to fornication, defilement, adultery, or rape; in current times, it can lead to an addiction to pornography.  Like with anger or murder in the heart, this adultery in the heart must be nipped in the bud.  Like Joseph with Potiphar's wife and the advice of Solomon and Paul, one must flee from that temptation; one must turn his eyes from temptation.

(29) "And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish and not that your whole body should be cast into hell."

Obviously, Jesus did not intend for one to mutilate his body by plucking his eyes out.  His intention was to show just how serious the sin of adultery in the heart was.  It was imperative that one turn his eyes away from the temptation a beautiful woman might bring.  It was far more profitable to his soul that he deny his eyes any visual pleasure that might lead to something that would have his whole body cast into hell.  

Personally, I see this scripture another way.  My husband was blinded in a terrible car crash when he was a rebellious teenager.  He came from a Word of Faith believing family who always believed that they could faithfully pray his vision back, that by Jesus's stripes he was already healed, that he just needed to accept it because it was God's will that everyone be healed.  My husband came to believe that just because something looks bad, doesn't mean it is.  He looked to this verse, realizing that the taking of his eyes could be the thing that saved his soul.  He realized he was headed head-strong into the wrong direction away from God, and he came to thank God for His mercy in allowing whatever it took to save his soul.  God knows what it takes for each of us; some may need more than others to turn us back to Him.  This time on earth is but a brief minute compared to our glorious time in eternity with God.  Romans 8:18 tells us, "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."  I also believe that in my husband's suffering, as he had many other health issues as a result of that accident, many people may have been brought to Jesus by seeing his strong faith through all his struggles.  For all we knew, that may have been his purpose on earth.  We should be ready and willing for God to use us where we are.  My husband never faltered in his faith, and I know his reward is great in heaven.   

(30) "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell."

Likewise, Jesus said to keep one's hands from evil.  Denying oneself  temporary sinful pleasures is far more profitable to his soul.  I think of Hebrews 11 and the great leaders of faith, specifically the words spoken about Moses in verses 24 to 26, "By faith Moses, when he had come of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt, for he looked to the reward."

Scripture tells us that all things work together for good to them who love God and are called according to His purposes (Romans 8:28).  If we could only view our troubles as opportunities for God to use us, and realize that it is far better that we have these troubles and work in fellowship with Jesus, than to be free from troubles and go along distracted and unaware of the dangers to our souls in a godless world.

(31) "It has been said, 'Whoever shall divorce his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorcement.'"

Jesus spoke on the subject of divorce.  He didn't refer to this as a law said by them of old; divorce never was God's plan.  It was only a permission granted because of the hardness of the hearts of men (Mark 10:5); and the original intent was that only adultery permitted it.  However, the way the law was written in Deuteronomy 24:1, if his wife found "no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her," he could give her a bill of divorcement.  Men began to forget the second part, and if his wife no longer found favor in his eyes for whatever trivial reason, like he found another woman more desirable, then he could divorce her.  I can't help but compare this to our laws, how the original intent of our constitution has been lost, and bizarre rights have been written into it because of some language that could be taken out of context and twisted to invent rights never intended.  That is exactly what the Jews were doing 2000 years ago.

(32) "But I say to you that whoever shall divorce his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever shall marry her who is divorced, commits adultery."

Jesus said that if a man divorced his wife for any reason except for her sexual immorality (Strong's defined it as harlotry), then he caused her to commit adultery if she then married again.  Additionally, any man who would marry her would also be guilty of adultery.  Jesus was not revoking the permission granted in the law; He was restoring it to its original intent.  With their present interpretation of the law, if a man divorced his wife for a frivolous reason, that marriage bond ordained by God was still in effect; if she ran to the arms of another man and married him, she would be guilty of adultery because she was still lawfully married in the eyes of God and the original intent of the law.  The man who married her would also be guilty of adultery because he married an already married woman.  The first husband would have caused all this because of his rejection of his wife for a trivial reason.

(33) "Again you have heard that it has been said by them of old time, 'You shall not forswear yourself, but shall perform to the Lord your oaths.'"

Jesus spoke again about a law from men of old, referring to Leviticus 19:12, that one must not swear by the Lord's name falsely, and that he was to carry out his oaths he vowed to the Lord or by His name.

(34) "But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; (35) Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King."

Once again, we can be certain that Jesus was not changing any law.  There would be times when swearing by God would be necessary as in a court of law.  However, He was discouraging swearing about trivial matters.  An oath to God was a very solemn matter.  As Leviticus 19:12 went on to say, by swearing falsely by His name, one would so profane the name of his Lord God.  By flippantly swearing an oath to God, one would be taking His name in vain, equating it to some trivial matter.  He also said not to swear by heaven; that was equally solemn and serious because heaven was God's throne.  Swearing by the earth should be prohibited because the earth was God's footstool; and swearing by Jerusalem would be carelessly swearing about the city of the great King, their Lord.  It was better not to swear at all because to do so in the manner He described was to profane the Lord and take His name in vain.

(36) "Neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black."

Likewise, one should not swear by his head or his life or the like because in doing so, he swore by things out of his control, and things which are more God's than his own.  That, in effect, would be diminishing God, as well.

(37) "But let your communication be 'Yes' for yes, and 'No' for no; for whatever is more than these comes of evil."

Jesus said a simple truthful yes or no was sufficient without swearing oaths.  More than that would lead to evil.  However, Jesus's words were, "comes of evil."  It seems men again twisted a law.  They might not swear by God, but by swearing by other things, they could get away with perjury through a loophole.  Because they had not sworn an oath to God, they were under no obligation to perform what they had vowed according to the strict words of the law.  However, Jesus informed the people before him that all was God's, so they shouldn't swear at all.

(38) "You have heard that is has been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'"

This was the law of retribution.  Its original intent was that it should take vengeance out of the hands of private parties and commit it to the magistrate.  It was not intended to be used as an excuse to literally maim the accused, but understood to mean that one must pay a price equivalent to the damage done; and that was left up to the judges to determine, not for private parties to exact revenge.

(39) "But I say to you that you do not resist evil, but whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

The word translated as evil here, "poneros," Strong's tells us is not the same as other words used for evil that represent the essential character of evil, evil itself.  "Poneros" is a form of the word "ponos" which means anguish or pain; therefore this was an evil act conducted to bring about anguish or pain.  It cannot be said it was meant to be evil itself, as we are told elsewhere to resist the devil, the quintessential evil one (James 4:7).  Jesus's meaning in turning the other cheek was to resist the inclination to immediately seek vengeance, but to be willing to patiently suffer a repetition of the same injury.  "A soft answer turns away wrath" (Proverbs 15:1), but seeking revenge would only stir up more anger and more evil.  Although the law allowed for retribution, again Jesus went to the heart of the matter, suggesting that there not be evil in men's heart against their adversary so that they seek revenge, but they should seek to lovingly defuse the situation.

(40) "And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also."

Likewise, if the matter went all the way to court, and one lost something to another in court, rather than dropping the matter there with resentments still in place, one should give something else of himself to ease the hostilities.  It was better to suffer loss of property than to engender hatred that could eventually affect men's souls.

(41) "And whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two."

I am reminded of the saying that if you give an inch, they'll take a mile.  Jesus says that is actually what we should intend.  If someone should force some action of us, we should be willing to do more.  Adam Clarke in his Commentary on the Bible, pointed out that these previous verses represented three types of injuries:  insults and injuries (striking the cheek); loss of property (coat and cloak); and when our bodies are forced to endure all kinds of toil and torment (forcing to go a mile).  We are exhorted to love, patience, and forgiveness.

(42) "Give to him who asks you, and from him who would borrow from you, do not turn away."

In a sort of summary, Jesus said to give to one who asked and not to turn away from one who wanted to borrow.  Note that Jesus didn't say a brother or a Christ follower (Christian), but anyone who asks.  In Luke 6:30, Jesus said to "give to every man who asks of you".  

(43) "You have heard that it has been said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.'"

It is totally evident that scripture had told men to love their neighbors, but I wasn't sure it ever said to hate their enemies.  This was probably a corruption of the law to love one's neighbor, as a neighbor the Jews interpreted to be one of their own nation and religion, giving them justification to hate those who were not part of it.  In a psalm of David, Psalm 139:20-22, David felt justified in hating his enemies because they hated His Lord; he hated them with "perfect hatred."

(44) "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you."

However, Jesus said to love your enemies, and to bless and do good to them.  Of course, the best thing we can do for all is to pray for them.  The law had been corrupted in that people felt justified in separating their neighbor from their enemy.  It was never God's intention that we hate anyone.  Harboring hatred in the heart hurts the heart's owner, not so much the one who is the object of the hatred.  We are to hate evil (Psalm 97:10, Proverbs 8:13, Amos 5:15), but not the person.  We don't wrestle against flesh and blood, but against dark powers and spiritual wickedness (Ephesians 6:12).  Is it so hard to love a lost soul who is being deceived by Satan and may spend eternity in hell because of it?  If we could see our enemies as Jesus did, poor lost souls who "know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), we can find it in our hearts to love them.  It doesn't mean we have complacency in their evil or profane actions, or put confidence in someone we know to be deceitful, but we love the person.  We must remember that when we were lost, we did atrocious things, and our Lord loved and forgave us; so should we be willing to love our enemies.  "There but for the grace of God go I."

(45) "That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust."

Jesus said people were to love their enemies so that they might be called the children of God, followers and imitators of Him.  God gives His sun and rain to both the just and the unjust, both the evil and the good.  As imitators of their Father, so should they give their love to both their neighbors and their enemies.

(46) "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?"

Jesus said if people only loved those who loved them, there was nothing deserving of praise in that.  Even the tax collectors, whom the Jews considered generally men of the worst characters, loved those who loved them.  People who only found it in their hearts to love those who loved them were no better that the most despicable people.

(47) "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Don't even the tax collectors do so?"

Likewise, Jesus said if people only greeted their friends, they were doing nothing more than the loathsome tax collectors did.

(48) "Therefore be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Obviously, no person on earth can ever be perfect like God!  However, that should always be our goal.  We can be children of God, imitators of Him; in this case, we can love all people, even those who do harm to us.  Perfect love casts out fear and torment.  God is love and he who lives in love lives in God, and God is in him; in that way love is made perfect. (1 John 4:16-18).

The laws Jesus spoke about in these verses all have to do with love in our hearts--love instead of anger and murder in our hearts, love instead of lust in our hearts, love for our enemies, and there's even love in truth (v. 37).  Jesus would later say that to love was the greatest commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind...and...you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

John the Baptist, and the Baptism of Jesus

Continuing a study of the Gospels:

(Matthew 3:1) In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea.

Here "those days" refers to the time of Christ.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, wrote that there had not been a prophet since Malachi, some 400 years earlier than the time of Christ.  Indeed, Malachi, in Malachi 3:1, had prophesied the coming of John the Baptist in the days of Jesus:  "Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me, and the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, whom you delight in; behold, He shall come, says the LORD of hosts."  Now in Matthew 3:1, here came John the Baptist, preaching:

(2) And saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

John's message was to repent; the original Greek word used was "metanoeo", meaning "to think differently, reconsider (morally to feel compunction)".  The state of the Jews at that time was very corrupt.  Many were righteous in their own eyes and felt they needed no repentance, but here John called all to repent because the kingdom of heaven was at hand.  This kingdom of heaven was not that glorious kingdom of God in another world, heaven, but the kingdom of the Messiah was here.  God was about to erect His kingdom on earth as prophesied by Daniel in Daniel 2:44, "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."  It was not really a physical kingdom on earth, but rather a spiritual kingdom coming to earth.  The covenant of grace, the opening of the kingdom of heaven to all believers, by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, had come to earth through the birth of Jesus.  This was to be a kingdom of which Christ was sovereign, and all must be the willing, loyal subjects of it, by repentance.  

(3) For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.'"

Matthew explained that this John the Baptist was the one who had been prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 40:3, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'"  It was said of John before he was born that he was to prepare the way for the Lord, preparing the people for the coming of their Messiah.

(4) And the same John had his clothing of camel's hair, and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.

Matthew went on to describe John the Baptist.  He wore clothing of camel's hair, which was surely an undressed camel skin with hair, as later we are told in scripture that he did not wear soft clothing, camel hair that had been softened and dressed or spun into soft wool.  Matthew Henry commented on John's "garb", "The garb in which he appeared, the figure he made, and the manner of his life. They, who expected the Messiah as a temporal prince, would think that his forerunner must come in great pomp and splendour, that his equipage should be very magnificent and gay; but it proves quite contrary; he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, but mean in the eyes of the world..."  Just as 1 Corinthians 1:27-28 told us, "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are."  I think the significance of his diet was to suggest it was plain and was what was available to him in the wilderness.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, took it a step further and declared that, "Among the Greeks the vilest of the people used to eat them (locusts); and the fact that John made his food of them is significant of his great poverty and humble life."  It would also add to the notion that God used the base things and things that are despised.

(5) Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him.

Great multitudes of people from Jerusalem, all parts of Judea, and from all the region around the Jordan River went out to see John the Baptist, and to hear the message he preached.

(6) And were baptized of him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.  

Not only did all these people go out to see and hear him, but they confessed their sins, desiring to repent as John had called them to do, and were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

(7) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said to them, "O generation of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

The Pharisees were a sect of Jews who derived their name from "parash" meaning "to separate".  They separated themselves from the rest of their countrymen, and devoted themselves to a strict interpretation of the law that they felt made them justified in their self-righteousness, and they looked down upon the common people.  The Sadducees took their name from Sadok, who was just as legalistic, but apparently not believing in any future reward or resurrection, just following God's law.  They were deists and materialists who believed there was no spiritual influence of God on His people, and they endeavored to secure worldly rewards, wealth and high office.  When the Pharisees and Sadducees came to John's baptism, it is interesting that he did not greet them with the same offering as the other people to come, repent, and be baptized.  He called them by the same name that Jesus would later use, a generation of vipers, the serpent's seed of their father the devil.  Though they thought themselves to be holy and above reproach, John called out their true character.  Being they were so self-righteous, John asked them who or what could have persuaded them to seek escape from the wrath to come, divine punishment.

(8) “Therefore bring forth fruits worthy of repentance."

John told the Pharisees and Sadducees to show the evidence that they were sincere in their desire to repent.

(9) “And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones."

Furthermore, John warned them not to think just because they were descendants of Abraham, that made them righteous.  That was of small matter in the eyes of God; He could raise up stones to be more worthy descendants of Abraham than those self-righteous, hypocritical descendants.

(10) "And now also the axe is laid to the root of the trees; therefore every tree which does not bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire."

He told them the axe was laid to the root of the trees, meaning they were about to be cut down; the time was very near.  Every person who did not bring forth the fruit of true repentance would be cut down and cast into an eternal fire, not being good for fruit, but only for fuel. 

(11) “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

John admitted that he baptized people in water upon their repentance, but the One he was preparing the way for, Who would come after him, was mightier than he was.  John said He was so great that he was not worthy to even carry His shoes.  It was He who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.  It was only through Him that real baptism of souls could take place, pouring the Holy Spirit upon His people.  John's baptism with water was only an outward sign that people had repented and desired Christ.  It was through Christ alone and His sending of the Holy Spirit that the souls of people were truly baptized and then led by the Holy Spirit to become anew.

(12) "Whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the granary, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Continuing a description of the One who would come after him, John described Him as having a fan, or more precisely, a winnowing fork used to throw or fan the grain in the air to separate the chaff from the grain.  He would thoroughly clean His threshing floor, His floor being the world He came to save.  He would gather His people into safety and everlasting life, but the chaff, those who would reject Him, He would burn with an unquenchable fire, one that could never be extinguished by man.

(13) Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him.

After John had spent some time preaching repentance and baptizing people, Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan River, seeking to be baptized by him.  

(14) But John forbade Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and You come to me?”

One can only imagine John's surprise at this.  He had stated He was not even worthy enough to carry Jesus's shoes, yet Jesus came to him for baptism.  He opposed this, saying he was in need to be baptized by Jesus, and it didn't make sense to him that Jesus would come to him.

(15) And Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.

Jesus, who had no need for repentance or baptism, told John to let it be that way for that moment in time.  Christ was at that time in a state of humiliation; He had emptied Himself and made Himself of no reputation (Philippians 2:7), made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3).  He would be baptized by John, as if He needed to be washed, and He was made sin for us, though He knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).  Jesus said it was fitting that they should fulfill all God's righteous laws, or perhaps He meant it was proper at that time because the time had not yet come that He baptize with the Holy Spirit.  This reason satisfied John and he baptized Jesus.

(16) And Jesus, when he was baptized, came up immediately out of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened to Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on Him.

When Jesus was baptized and had come up out of the water, immediately the heavens opened, a visible sign seen by John and upon Jesus, and John saw the Spirit of God descend like a dove and light on Jesus.  Luke 3:22 says that the Holy Spirit descended in bodily shape like a dove.  Whether it was actually a dove or not, it was certainly a visible likeness and motion as of a dove that John could see land on Jesus.

(17) And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

At the moment the Holy Spirit lit on Jesus, a voice came from heaven, God declaring that this Jesus was His beloved Son, in Whom He was well pleased.  God had been displeased with His people who all sinned and fell short (Romans 3:23).  God was very pleased with His son of man, in whom His plan of salvation for His people would be fulfilled.  At this moment in time, there was evidence of all three forms of God simultaneously--God the Father in heaven speaking, God the Holy Spirit descending in a visible bodily form, and God the Son, God in human form born of woman.  

Laws of Humanity and Purity

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Deuteronomy 22:1) “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall in any case bring them back to your brother."

Moses continued reviewing laws with the people of Israel, as he had been doing for most of the book of Deuteronomy.  Here he discussed humanity toward their brethren.  If one saw that his brother's ox or sheep had gone or been driven astray, he was not to pretend he did not notice and continue on his way, but he was to bring it back to his brother.

(2) “And if your brother is not near to you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks after it, and you shall restore it to him again."

In the case of strays belonging to someone far away, or if the owner was not known, they were to be brought to the finder's own house and cared for, until the owner sought after them.  The one who found the strays was to then give them back to their owner. 

(3) "In like manner shall you do with his ass, and so shall you do with his clothing; and with any lost thing of your brother's, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you may not hide yourself."

The same applied to his donkey, his clothing, or any lost thing of his brother.  He was not to pretend he didn't see the lost thing, but was to return it to his brother or protect it until his brother came looking for it.

(4) “You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fall down along the way and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again."

Additionally, if one was to see his brother's donkey or ox fall down, he must not act as if he didn't see it and continue on his way; he was to help his brother lift the animal up again.  Basically, all these acts are summed up by the golden rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  We must act in love and help our brother in distress as we will surely need help one day and would hope someone was there to help us.

(5) "The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are abomination to the LORD your God."

Women were not to wear men's clothing and men weren't to wear women's clothing as confusing the sexes that way was an abomination to the Lord.  This should not be understood as simply putting on the other sex's clothing for one occasion, as the warrior Deborah might have worn men's garments into battle.  Perhaps a man might dress as a woman to escape capture.  Those cases wouldn't be abomination to the Lord.  The sense is that one should not seek to alter what has been naturally and divinely established; altering the order of nature would demonstrate contempt for God's creation.  A man wearing the under clothes of a woman because it brings him sensual pleasure is a means for self-gratification rather than a deep, intimate human connection, which has been God's plan from the beginning.  In Moses's time it is likely this confusing of garments had been used to gain opportunity of committing sexual impurity, as with the case of Clodius who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in a feast reserved solely for women, purportedly with the intention of seducing Caesar's wife.  A woman might dress like a man to gain the attention of a woman because of homosexual desires.  These are the reasons that cross dressing would be an abomination to the Lord.  As with all God's laws, it's the heart behind the act that matters.  Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28, "You have heard that it was said by them of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

(6) “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; (7) You shall surely let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, that it may be well with you and that you may prolong your days."

This is said to be the least of all the commandments of the law of Moses.  Yet, as Matthew Henry pointed out in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, "the same promise is here made to the observance of it that is made to the keeping of the fifth commandment, which is one of the greatest, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days; for as disobedience in a small matter shows a very great contempt of the law, so obedience in a small matter shows a very great regard to it."  If a bird's nest was in the way and it had to be disturbed, one was permitted to take the eggs or the young birds, but not the mother bird; she was to be allowed to fly away.  In a very practical sense, it makes good common sense, that to destroy both young and old, would make the breed soon become extinct, and destroying animal species in the land would necessarily shorten men's lives in the land that depended on animals.  From the beginning in Genesis, God gave man dominion over the animals, and after the flood, God said specifically that all animals could be used for food.  However, there are numerous scriptures against cruelty to animals.  This particular passage shows an especial tenderness by the Lord for a mother and her young as has been seen in other scriptures, such as not killing a mother and her young both in one day (Leviticus 22:28) and not boiling a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19).  Laws like these taught humanity and compassion, but I can't help but take note of what regard the Lord seems to have in these type of laws for the mother and child bond.

(8) “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your house if any man falls from it."

When the people built houses, they were to make them safe.  The roofs were generally flat in those times and were often walked upon, so there were occasions when one might fall off the roof if there wasn't a parapet or some such wall to protect against falling.  The law was said to protect against guilt of bloodshed implying that one who didn't make a parapet for his roof would indeed be guilty of a man's death who might fall off his roof and die.  The same such common sense measures are applied now, for example, covering a well or fencing around a swimming pool, so that fatal accidents be avoided. 

(9) “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse seeds, lest the fruit of your seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled."

This and the next two laws don't appear to be morally evil in themselves, but as God's people were to be pure and were not to intermarry with the heathens, so should their vineyards remain pure and not mixed.  As Matthew Henry wrote, "They must not gratify their own vanity and curiosity by putting those things together which the Creator in infinite wisdom had made asunder..."

(10) “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together."

The people were not to plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.  They could use each separately, but were not to use them together.  This seems to be a very good illustration of not being unequally yoked with unbelievers, or of mingling with the unclean, as an ox with a donkey. 

(11) “You shall not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together."

Once again here is a law that seems to have no moral or ethical foundation, but would serve to teach the people to be pure and not to experiment with the mixing of fabrics.  For one thing, it's a wise and practical law because mixing fabrics that do not wash and wear in the same ways would make for ill-fitting and motley-looking garments.  Additionally, as I quoted from Matthew Henry above, it might be seen as a vain and prideful thing to mix and match colors and fabrics.

(12) “You shall make fringes upon the four quarters of your vesture, with which you cover yourself."

The Israelites were to put fringes on the four corners of their cover garments.  In Numbers 15:38-39, they were told to do this so that they might look upon the fringes as reminders of God's commandments.  Additionally, it could be for a public profession of their nation and religion, and as God's special people, they might be distinguished from other peoples.  They were called to be pure and set apart, and the previous few laws were illustrative of this.

(13) “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and hates her, (14) And gives occasions of speech against her, and brings up an evil name upon her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maiden,' (15) Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the evidence of the damsel's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate."

This law covers the case of a man who took a wife and was intimate with her, but then decided he didn't like her.  He then talked badly about her and accused her of not being a virgin when he married her.  It was up to the parents of the woman to bring forth the evidence of their daughter's virginity to the elders of their city.  What evidence that was is not explained here, but no doubt the people of the time understood what evidence was required to prove a daughter's virginity.

(16) "And the damsel's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he hates her; (17) And, lo, he has given occasions of speech against her, saying, "I found your daughter not a maiden," and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city."

The father of the maiden who had been slandered would present her case to the elders and provide the evidence of her virginity.  Again, what exactly this could be is unknown, but it appears there was physical evidence that would be shown to the elders.

(18) "And the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; (19) And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the damsel, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel, and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days."

The man who lied about his wife's virginity was to be punished and fined 100 shekels of silver to be given to her father, as his lie had been injurious to the reputation of the woman's family.  The man would not be allowed to ever divorce his wife.  Dr. John Gill pointed out in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, that it was permitted within the law to divorce a wife, but the man would have to give his wife a dowry.  It appears in this case, the man sought to save himself the dowry and chose to lie and ruin her reputation.  For this evil act, the fine he paid was double what the dowry would have been, according to Dr. Gill, which seems a reasonable punishment. 

(20) “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the damsel; (21) Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she has wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house; so shall you put evil away from among you."

However, if it was found that the husband was telling the truth and there was found no evidence to prove his wife's virginity before their marriage, then the woman was to be brought to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city were to stone her to death.  The reason given was that she had wrought folly or foolishness in Israel.  Actually, the archaic meaning of the word folly was wickedness or wantonness, and that is more likely what is meant here.  Because she had played the whore in her father's house which is where she had been before her marriage, she was brought back to his door.  With this punishment, the children of Israel put away such evil from among them.  They literally put away the evil one in this case, and by that example, deterred other young women from such action.

(22) “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away evil from Israel."

If any man, married or unmarried, lay with a married woman, then both of them were to be put to death for the crime of adultery.  Again this was said to put away evil from Israel.

(23) “If a damsel who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, (24) Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she did not cry out, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away evil from among you."

If a young virgin who was betrothed to a husband, but not yet married and the marriage not yet consummated, was found in the city and a man lay with her, and she did not cry out, indicating her consent, both the man and the woman were to be brought to the gate of that city and stoned to death.  This was seen as adultery even though the woman was not yet married.  She was promised to her husband and the man who lay with her had taken what should have been her husband's alone.  Note this was just indicated for the woman in a city.  The young woman probably shouldn't have been wandering the city alone, exposing herself to temptation.  If she was completely innocent, she would have cried out against the man trying to take advantage of her.  

(25) "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die."

However, if a man found a young betrothed woman in the field and he forced himself on her to lie with her, then the man only was to be put to death.  The young woman alone in a field would not be seen as curiously tempting fate, and the fact that she was alone in a field meant that there would be no one to help her if she cried out.

(26) "But to the damsel you shall do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter. (27) For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."

Only the man who forced himself on the young woman was to be put to death.  It was to be assumed that the young woman cried out, and there was no one to save her.  Just as when a man rose up against another and killed him, only the murderer was guilty of sin, and this matter of rape was to be judged the same way. 

(28) “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, (29) Then the man who lay with her shall give to the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

If a man found a young woman who was a virgin but was not betrothed to another, and he lay with her, and they were found out, then the man was to marry the woman and give her father a dowry of fifty shekels of silver.  In this particular case, the man was not allowed to ever divorce the woman.  Although divorce was permissible in some cases, because this man had defiled the young virgin, no matter how unpleasing she might afterward be to him, his "punishment" was that he could never divorce her.  This was to deter young men from acting rashly and taking advantage of young virgins.

(30) "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt."

In conclusion of this chapter, a man was forbidden to marry his father's wife, or to lie with her whom his father had thrown his skirt over.  This is understood to be the young man's stepmother, his father's second wife.  Otherwise, it would have read that he not take his mother.  Even if his father had married a much younger woman and then he died, his son was not to marry his widow, as it would be to uncover what was only to have been revealed to his father, his father's "nakedness" as it has been referred to in previous passages (Leviticus 18:8).

Prophecy of Christ the Great Prophet

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Deuteronomy 18:1) "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His inheritance."

Moses continues reviewing the Law.  He now spoke of the priests and all the tribe of Levi; they were to have no portion of land in Canaan as their inheritance as all the other tribes had.  The Levites' inheritance was to eat of the offerings that were the Lord's inheritance, that part that was the Lord's portion or inheritance, which God had reserved to Himself, as tithes and first fruits, and other offerings made by fire.  The Levites, as priests and ministers and servants of God, were given His inheritance.

(2) “Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance, as He has said to them."

The Levites were to have no inheritance among the other tribes because the Lord was their inheritance; they had no other needs other than Him.  Working in the service of God, they would have a special nearness and communion with Him, but God also provided for their physical needs by giving His portion of the inheritance to them.  The Lord had told Aaron the Levites would have no part in the inheritance among their brethren in Numbers 18:20.

(3) “And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw."

Moses went on to describe what would be the priests' portion required from the people who gave sacrifices of their cattle or sheep.  We were already told in Leviticus 7:32-34 that the priests were to be given the shoulder and the breast.  Here their portion seems to be increased to include the cheeks and the maw.  This led some commentators to think the breast was meant by maw here, but the original word translated as "maw" was "qebah" meaning "paunch or cavity", from the word "qabab" which means "to scoop out"; it does seem that the stomach was meant.  Additionally, there is the addition of the cheeks.  Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Bible, noted that as a slain animal might be thought to consist of three main parts, the head, the legs, and the trunk of the body, a portion of each was to be given to the priests, representing the consecration of the whole.  He added that some ancient commentators thought it represented the dedication of words (cheeks), acts (shoulder or legs), and appetites (stomach) of the worshiper to God.

(4) “The firstfruits of your corn, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him."

Additionally, all the people's firsts of their grains, wine, oil, first fleece, and firstlings, too, were all the Lord's, and He gave His portion to the priests.

(5) “For the LORD your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons forever."

By law, these were to be given to the priests because God had chosen Levi from among the tribes to minister in His name, Levi and his posterity, forever, at least until Jesus Christ came and was the perfect priest (Hebrews 7:11).

(6) "And if a Levite comes from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he dwells, and comes with all the desire of his mind to the place which the LORD shall choose, (7) Then he shall minister in the name of the LORD his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the LORD."

If one of the Levites who were dispersed all over the country, instructing and teaching the people, came to the place of God's temple that He would choose, with all his heart and soul and eager desire to serve the Lord, then he was permitted to minister at the temple where his Levite brethren ministered.

(8) “They shall have equal portions to eat, besides what comes from the sale of his patrimony."

Although the Levites had no portion of the land divided to them, it does seem by this and suggested by other verses involving Levites (1 Kings 2:26 and Jeremiah 32:7-8), that they were allowed to buy property that might be left to their children (patrimony).  Even though the Levites that came from where they dwelt outside the temple to minister within the temple might have had property, they were still to receive their equal portions as priests ministering in the temple.

(9) “When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations."

When the Israelites came into their promised land of Canaan, they were not to follow the traditions of the nations that dwelt before them, practices that were abominations to the Lord.

(10) “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, (11) Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer."

The people were forbidden to practice the consecrating of their children to the sun god by the passing between two fires.  They were forbidden to use divination, or be an observer of times, astrology.  They were forbidden to be witches, wizards, or mediums who communicated with spirits.  They were forbidden to perform enchantments, spells, or curses; they were to have no part in the dark spirit world, but were to follow only their Lord God and His light.

(12) “For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you."

All who practiced the things above were abominations to the Lord, and it was because of those pagan practices that the Lord was driving out those people from the land that He was then giving the children of Israel.

(13) "You shall be perfect with the Lord your God."

As discussed before, no person is perfect, except Jesus Christ, but God's people were to strive for perfection by adhering to all His laws, sincerely serving and worshiping Him, and walking uprightly before Him to the best of their abilities.

(14) “For these nations which you shall possess hearkened to observers of times, and to diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do so."

The people of the nations the children of Israel were dispossessing had listened to fortune-tellers and soothsayers, but the Lord had forbidden His people to do likewise.

(15) “The LORD your God will raise up to you a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like me; to Him you shall listen."

Here Moses makes a prophetic statement about the coming Messiah.  He told the people that God would raise up a Prophet from the midst of their tribes, a Prophet like him, and to this Prophet they were to listen.  God indeed raised up Jesus from birth from the tribe of Judah, and of course, He was raised up in resurrection.  This Prophet would be like Moses; actually Moses was the antitype or symbol of the coming Jesus Christ.  Moses was a prophet, a teacher, law-giver, and deliverer from bondage in Egypt, certainly symbolic of the coming Messiah.  All the Bible translations seem to suggest that "like me" was meant to be spoken by Moses, as "me" was lower-case and not an upper-case M.  My first thought was that the prophetic words were being spoken as directly from God, and "Me" referred to God.  If that were true, certainly no other prophet would be as like the Lord as would Jesus.  This prophecy was quoted by Peter in Acts 3:22 and by Stephen in Acts 7:37.  In Matthew 17:5 and Luke 9:35, God spoke from a cloud declaring Jesus to be His son and said to "Hear Him."

(16) "According to all that you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.'"

According to what the people desired of their Lord that day at Mount Sinai when the Lord had spoken directly to them in fire and thunder, the Lord would send them.  They no longer wanted to hear the direct voice of the Lord in terrible fire and thunder and lightning, fearing they might die in the presence of it, but desired that Moses talk with God and then tell them what God had said (Deuteronomy 5:24-27).

(17) “And the LORD said to me, 'They have well spoken what they have spoken.'"

The Lord had said at the time the people told Moses their desire, that what they suggested was good (Deuteronomy 5:28).

(18) "'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like to you, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak to them all that I shall command Him.'"

Although it was not stated at the time, it appears from this verse that after the Lord had said the people had well spoken, He told Moses He would raise up a Prophet from among their tribes, someone like him (Moses); it does appear from this verse that one like Moses was intended in verse 15, not one like God.  God would put His words in this Prophet's mouth, and He would speak all that God commanded Him.  Indeed, Jesus said that He didn't speak of Himself, but what God had commanded He speak, that He spoke (John 12:49).

(19) "'And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not hearken to My words, which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.'"

Continuing the prophecy that the Lord had given Moses at the time and what he now relayed to the people, he told them that it would be that whoever would not listen to the words of this Prophet that He would speak in God's name, God would "require it of him".  Most of the commentaries I study wrote this just meant they would be punished.  Indeed, we are told in the New Testament that those who believe and accept the Lord Jesus will have everlasting life, but those who don't will have death, even the wrath of God (John 3:36).  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, took it a step further, suggesting the Word itself would require it of the person who would not listen to God's word.  In John 1:1-2, we were told that Jesus Christ was the Word of God, with Him from the beginning.  Mr. Henry pointed out that in John 12:48 Jesus said that whoever rejected Him and did not accept His words, had one that judged him, "...the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."  The Word would judge him; Jesus Christ, the Word, would judge him in the end.  I, myself, couldn't help but think of the scripture that said every knee would bow to the Lord and every tongue would confess to Him (Romans 14:11).  In the end, it would be required of everyone to profess that Jesus Christ was Lord (Philippians 2:11).

(20) "‘But the prophet who shall presume to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'"

However, a prophet who presumed to speak a word in the Lord's name, which the Lord had not told him to speak, or one who spoke in the name of false gods, that was a false prophet who was to die.

(21) “And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ (22) When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

Moses added that if the people wondered how they would know if a prophet spoke the word of the Lord or not, he told them simply to observe whether or not what the prophet spoke came to be or not.  Obviously, if the thing did not come to pass, then the word had not come from the Lord, and the prophet had spoken of himself presumptuously, and was not to be feared.  In the New Testament, John wrote not to believe every spirit because there were many false prophets in the world.  He said to test the spirits to see if they were of God.  When Paul and Silas preached to the Bereans, the Bereans were said to be noble because not only did they listen to them, but they searched the scriptures to see if what they preached was so.  The people in the New Testament times had more knowledge and more resources to test a prophet, but the children of Israel could watch the fruits of a prophet to see if what he said came true, and also they could compare it to what they knew of the law.  God would not contradict His law, so any prophet who suggested the people do what was completely contrary to what God had told them to do, would obviously be a false prophet.

The most significant part of this chapter and post is the prophecy of Jesus Christ.  Once again I am in awe of how often Jesus is found in the Old Testament!  Think of God's love and mercy for His people.  He had chosen Israel to be His own people, but when His own people failed miserably to keep His commandments, and even said they didn't want to hear from Him directly for fear they would die from the awesome terror of it, God agreed to send a prophet to speak for Him.  This wasn't any prophet; it was the Lord Himself!  The people were terrified by the awesome God of the universe, so He came to earth in the flesh, completely man with all the earthly temptations of man, but perfect as God, to be the perfect sacrifice for us sinners.  Where John 1:1 told us that the Word was with God and the Word was God, John 1:2-3 went on to say that the Word was there from the beginning and all things were made by Him.  Then in John 1:14, we are told, "...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."  The Word WAS God and the Word was made flesh!  God Himself came to save the world!  That fleshly man would be the Prophet who would speak God's words because He was God's Word!  He was called His only begotten son as that was the way He was brought into the world, as a son born to an earthly mother, but there is no doubt He was God Himself!  It's a hard concept for our feeble minds to grasp, but then we are not capable of totally comprehending God.  If we were capable, then we would have a pretty small god.  Jesus prayed to God in heaven; did He pray to Himself?  God in the flesh prayed to God in heaven; He was after all bound in the flesh with all the earthly feelings and temptations.  A hard concept, perhaps, but what a beautiful one!  God so loved us that He came down to suffer on this earth to save us!  No greater love than this!  He suffered terrible pain and laid down His fleshly life for us.

Year of Release and Sanctifying the Firstborn of Herds and Flocks

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Deuteronomy 15:1) “At the end of every seven years you shall make a release."

In the book of Deuteronomy Moses reviewed the laws of God.  Here he began the subject of the year of release, which was to occur at the end of every seven years.

(2) "And this is the manner of the release: every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the LORD’s release."

Moses went on to explain the form of the release.  Every creditor who had lent anything to his neighbor was to release or forgive the debt, freeing him from any obligation to pay it.  The creditor must not demand payment from the debtor or his brother because it was the Lord's release, appointed and commanded by Him, to show mercy to the poor.  There is much discussion among the commentaries I study about exactly what this release meant.  Some say it was only a release of debts for that seventh year, since it was also a rest for the land and there was no plowing or sowing, and a poor man would have no means to pay.  Some said it only referred to loans lent because of poverty.  Some said the act of "exacting" meant suing or recovering by law.  That was what was forbidden, but if the debtor was able, he was afterwards bound in conscience to repay it.  It does seem like debtors could take advantage of this release, knowing that if they wait seven years, they need not pay, but then again, I suppose it's not unlike a statute of limitations on a debt.

(3) “Of a foreigner you may exact it, but that which is yours with your brother your hand shall release."

The children of Israel were allowed to demand payment from foreigners to whom they had made loans, but not from fellow Israelites.  Dr. John Gill, in his Exposition of the Entire Bible, pointed out this was illustrative of God's forgiveness of sins to those who are His own, those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.  Those who reject Christ and are not redeemed have no share in His blessing of grace, and owe their debt for their sins.

(4) "Save when there shall be no poor among you, for the LORD shall greatly bless you in the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it."

The word translated as "save" here, "ephes", means "cessation" or "end".  The verse could therefore read something like, "Except when there are no longer any poor..."  The law of release was only meant for the poor who were unable to pay their debts.  It was never intended to release a person of means from a debt.  Some commentators read it as "To the end that there be no more poor among you..."  By observing this law, all debts being released at the end of seven years, it would prevent people from falling into extreme poverty.  Either way you understand it, the purpose was to help the poor.  Likewise the meaning of the second part of the verse could be either because the Lord would greatly bless them in their promised land, that there would be no poor; or they could so easily afford to release the debts of the poor because they were so greatly blessed in their inherited land.

(5) "Only if you carefully hearken to the voice of the LORD your God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command you this day."

The previous promise that there would either be no more poor or that they were so greatly blessed in their promised land they could generously help the poor, was conditional upon their obedience to the Lord's commandments.

(6) “For the LORD your God blesses you as He promised you; and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; and you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you."

The previous verse 5 could also serve as a preface to this one, that only if the people obeyed their Lord's commandments, would the Lord so bless them that they would be able to lend to other nations and they would, in fact, reign over many nations, and those nations would not ever reign over them.  They could lend, but they could not borrow from other nations.  This promise was conditional upon the people holding up their side of the covenant and following their Lord's commandments.

(7) “If there is among you a poor man of one of your brethren within any of your gates in your land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother."

The Israelites were commanded not to harden their hearts nor refuse to lend to their poor brethren.  It could be that knowing that debts were forgiven at the end of seven years, they might decide it was better not to lend.  However, their Lord commanded them not to forsake the poor.  He once again reminded them that He was giving them this great land, and they should be willing to give, as well.

(8) “But you shall open your hand wide to him and shall surely lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he wants."

The people were commanded to give liberally and lend whatever was needed.  I can't help but think of lending institutions that often won't lend as much as one needs, ensuring failure.  God's people are commanded to give as much as one needs if in his ability to do so.

(9) “Beware that there be not a thought in your wicked heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and it be sin to you."

Indeed, the Lord, through Moses, warned the people not to consider the year of release being at hand and refuse to lend because of that.  If a person was not compassionate toward his poor brother and refused to give him anything to the point he cried out to the Lord in prayer for his need, that would be considered a sin against the one who refused to lend.

(10) “You shall surely give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand."

The people were commanded to lend or give to a poor brother, and not be grieved at parting with money they had little hope of seeing again.  They were to give liberally and cheerfully, and the Lord would bless them mightily for their acts of generosity.

(11) "For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor, and to your needy, in your land.’"

There would always be some need in the land.  Some question whether this is a contradiction to verse 4.  I don't think so at all, any way you look at verse 4.  The law of release was meant for the poor.  If there were no poor, it would not be needed.  It was not intended for the rich to borrow and then not have to repay.  The practice of lending and then releasing a debt to the poor would prevent the poor from falling into extreme poverty.  The reason the people were to do this was to strive to prevent poverty in their land of plenty, but there would always be a need.  The Lord wanted His people to be proactive in their generosity, giving liberally to the poor or needy in their land.  It's like the scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect..."  In perceived contradiction, there are countless verses that suggest no man is perfect or without sin.  But perfection in the ways of the Lord is that for which we should always strive, just as the people in this passage in Deuteronomy were to strive to eradicate the poor by always being generous with the blessings that had been given them.

(12) “If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you."

There were three different ways an Israelite could be sold to another.  In extreme poverty, he could sell himself; parents in extreme poverty might sell their daughter to be a handmaiden, or because of a criminal activity, one might be sold to pay off his debt.  However he or she came to be owned by another, he was only to serve six years, and must be released in the seventh year.  There was never to be perpetual slavery.

(13) “And when you send him out free from you, you shall not let him go away empty. (14) You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress; of that which the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him."

Whenever a servant was released, he was not to be sent away empty-handed.  The people were commanded to give generously out of what God had blessed them with, from their livestock, from their harvested grains, and from their wine.  This was in keeping with giving liberally to the poor.  A servant was not to be sent out into extreme poverty, but rather with adequate provisions.

(15) "And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today."

The people were never to forget that they had once been slaves in Egypt, how it had felt to be in terrible bondage and hardship.  They were to show compassion to their fellow Israelites because God had shown mercy to them in delivering them out of bondage and bringing them to this land of great promise and blessing; they were likewise to release their brethren from servitude and furnish them with plenty of good things with which to start their lives again.

(16) "And it shall be, if he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, because he is well with you, (17) Then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise."

If at the time of his release, a servant said that he did not want to leave because he had come to love his master and his family and household, and because he was quite content in his position in the household, then his master was to thrust an awl through the servant's ear to the door.  According to Exodus 21:6, he was brought to the judges to declare his desire to remain with his master.  Boring the ear to the doorpost was a ceremonial symbol of permanent servitude with his intention to always hear his master's orders and obey them forever, that is, for the rest of his life or until the year of Jubilee when all servants were released.  Likewise, a maidservant was to be treated in the same way as a manservant.

(18) “It shall not seem hard to you when you send him away free from you, for he has been worth a double hired servant in serving you six years; and the LORD your God will bless you in all that you do."

The people were commanded not to begrudge their servants their liberty when they released them after six years, nor were they to begrudge all with which they sent them away.  Their servants had been worth double hired servants because if their servants had been hired, they would have been required to pay them wages, as well as food and housing.  Additionally, there is a verse in Isaiah that speaks of the days of a hireling being three years.  The meaning in verse 18 might also mean that they had had their servants double the time as usual hired servants.  Once again is the promise that the Lord would bless them in all that they did if they would follow His commands, in this instance, treating their servants as He commanded.

(19) “All the firstborn males that come from your herd and your flock you shall sanctify to the LORD your God; you shall do no work with the firstborn of your bulls, nor shear the firstborn of your flock."

Moses reviewed the law concerning the firstborn of the people's herds and flocks.  All the firstborn males were to be sanctified to the Lord in remembrance of, and in thankfulness for, sparing the firstborn of Israel, when the firstborn of the Egyptians, both of man and beast, were slain by the destroying angel.  No work was to be done with the firstborn male of cattle, and no wool could be sheared from the firstborn of sheep; they were the Lord's.

(20) "You shall eat it before the LORD your God year by year in the place which the LORD chooses, you and your household."

Dr. Gill wrote that if this referred to the firstborn males from verse 19, then only the priests were allowed to eat of those animals sanctified to the Lord.  However, if verse 20 referred to all Israelites, then they must be firstborn females or "second" firstlings which the people voluntarily separated every year; they were not to eat them in their own houses, but before the Lord in the place that He would choose to put His name.

(21) "And if there be any blemish in it, if it is lame or blind or has any ill blemish, you shall not sacrifice it to the LORD your God."

However, if there was any blemish or defect in the firstborn, if it was blind or lame or had any other defect, it was not to be sacrificed to their Lord God.  It would not be fit to honor God with, nor to typify Christ, who was the perfect Lamb without blemish.

(22) “You shall eat it within your gates; the unclean and the clean alike shall eat it, as the roebuck and as the hart."

The firstborn animals with defects were allowed to be eaten within their own households, and the ceremonially clean and unclean alike might eat of them, just as was allowed with the roebuck and the hart, which were not offered as sacrifices, but were clean animals that were allowed to be eaten.

(23) “Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it on the ground as water."

The only prohibition was that the people not eat the blood of the firstborn animal that had a defect; they were to pour its blood out on the ground.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, commented that although we were no longer under this law of the firstborn, making no difference between a first calf or lamb or whether or not it had a defect, we should be mindful that it is all God's.  We owe Him the first of our time and strength, "as a kind of first-fruits of his creatures, and using all our comforts and enjoyments to his praise and under the direction of his law, as we have them all by his gift."