That's all Folks: Deuternomy 34

In Summary:

Moses dies. That’s the basic summary of Deuteronomy 34. God sends Moses up Mount Nebo, which is in present-day Jordan, and has him look over the whole of the land of Israel. The chapter closes with the official hand-off to Joshua and a closing praise of Moses, that no one has arisen in Israel that is his equal.

This chapter marks the close of the Pentateuch, and is likely the work of a later writer than Moses. It is not necessary for Moses to have prophetic knowledge of his death so that he can write it just to preserve the idea of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Others wrote Scripture, it is not problematic for someone other than Moses to record this information.

As the concluding chapter of the Pentateuch, we find the story seemingly at its conclusion. The Pentateuch opens with the creation of the world and the placing of God’s people in a fertile land. Then Adam and Eve are exiled from that land due to sin. The story carries forward to this point, where the people of God stand on the edge of a fertile land with the power of God that blocked a return to Eden opening the Promised Land.

What we see now is that this was not the end of God’s work in the world. It was not His plan to place one nation in one place only, but to use that nation for the sake of the whole of humanity. Israel is a portion of God’s plan, but Jesus is the fulfillment of it.

In Focus:

Let us take Deuteronomy 34:4-5 and place them in focus. Here we see the death of Moses, described as a “servant of YHWH.” He dies, not from old age or battle, but from the judgment of God. (See 34:7). Moses had disobeyed God and this judgment had been pronounced in Numbers 20.

Moses had begun his calling on one mountain, Mt. Sinai, and now his work concludes on Mt. Nebo. His death reflects that no matter how great one is, disobedience still has consequences in the sight of the Lord God.

In Practice:

Practically speaking, here are some thoughts from this chapter:

1. There are consequences to disobeying God. Even for the greatest of people, like Moses, direct disobedience is destructive. Those who lead should know better, and are held accountable to knowing better.
2. It is worth remembering people who are inspirations to us. However, we must be careful not to make them into objects of worship. This is part of the lesson of the loss of Moses’ body. His remains are somewhere, but it is his legacy that the people were to learn from. They were not to enshrine or elevate his body to a relic.
3. We can know that many who are the equal of Moses have come by now. Peter, James, John, Thaddeus, Saul…all spoke to the Lord God face-to-face. This is the glory of the Incarnation. God did not keep Himself separate from His people as in the time of Moses. Instead, through Jesus many spoke with Him face-to-face. We should not disdain the opportunity!

In all, we can celebrate that the God who opened the Red Sea and delivered Israel is still God today.

In Nerdiness:

A couple of nerd points here: Deuteronomy 34:7 should be taken to understand there was no reason for Moses to die yet, at least not naturally. Apparently, God did not put Moses through the issues of declining health—perhaps to allow him to lead the people right up to the last minute. It is also worth noting: sometimes, it takes the passing of one person to allow another to rise in their place to handle the next step.

Moses’ eyes are apparently quite good, if you think he saw details of the land. I think he did. I think God enabled him, in 34:1ff to see the land better than the vantage point was.

Overall, the judgment on Moses reflects that God holds holiness as mandatory. Even the greatest of the human prophets had to deal with the consequences of sin.

Finally, note the connection between Deuteronomy 34 and Jude 9. There is something in this, although some theologians argue about what it means. (Bede, for example, suggests the “body of Moses” in Jude is actually the people of Israel that remained, and Michael is the angel who defended them. Others, whose links I cannot find, suggest a symbolic response to Jude 9 as relating to the Law itself.)

Blessing at the End--Deuteronomy 33

In Summary:
Here we are, at the end of Moses’ life. We have seen him challenge the people to remember the law throughout their days, and now we see him proclaim a blessing on the people. Dueteronomy 33 records these words, and this is the last Moses will speak. The following chapter will be added to conclude the Pentateuch.
Each tribe is mentioned in the 28-verse poem, though some have more said of them than others. It is also important to note that much of the blessing is praise of YHWH, God of Israel. The idea is that one cannot bless the people of God without praising God Himself.
In Focus:
Rather than grabbing a particular tribe’s blessing to discuss, take a look at the Deuteronomy 33:29. From a “quotes” perspective, these are truly Moses’ last words. That is, except for telling Joshua, “I’m headed up the mountain. Later, dude.” Or whatever he says on the way out of camp in the next chapter.
He proclaims that the people of Israel are blessed. This is not because they have been amazing—looking back through the chapter, Moses is *still* reminding them of their failures at places like Meribah.
Instead, they are blessed because God has saved them. Because of this blessing, they are to remember what YHWH has done for them, and to trust Him as their shield and helper. He has saved them already, and they should trust Him to secure them throughout.
Of course, we are in possession of the whole story. We know that Israel will turn their back on God. They will walk away, seeking help and safety from the gods of the land they conquer. They forget God’s grace in saving them and the results are terrible.
In Practice:
We should keep in mind a few things about ourselves as we read this. First and foremost, we’re no better than Israel at the time. God has not saved anyone because that person was needed by God for any purpose. God saves out of His love and His grace.
If we start from that point, then we can move on to a few others. Like Israel listening to Moses here, we do not know how our story ends. Will we be faithful? Will we hold to the God who saved us? Or will we walk away?
We also need to consider the transitions in life ahead of us. Old generations pass on, new generations come. Are we prepared for that? Are we ready to hand off to the next generation, passing on the blessing of salvation to them?
Or do we hoard the blessing of God? He is the Eternal God, our dwelling place for all time. Let us rest in that.
In Nerdiness:
Jeshurun. Jeshurun? And it gets worse if you compare Deuteronomy 33:26 in NASB and ESV. Who is Jeshurun? It’s a Hebrew title that means “upright one.” It’s used of Israel in 32:15, 33:5, and Isaiah 44:2. There are some suppositions that the “Book of Jashar” reference in Joshua 10 is related to the name as well.
It appears to be a drop-in name that replaces Israel, used for the people. But that’s hard to nail down. We need to remember that cultural norms and everyday life in the time of Moses is far from clear to us. Most of what we “know” truly counts as surmised and assumed, not as definitely proven. We don’t see life then as we see life now. It’s not possible.
So we take some conclusions about how things worked, and go from there. Always remember to keep those conclusions in perspective, because evidence could arise that shows we need to redo them!

Sing it with Moses!: Deuteronomy 32

In Summary:

Moses composes a song for the people of Israel. It’s not a love song. It’s not a rock song. It’s a reminder song. This chapter is, primarily, the “Song of Moses.” You can connect it with the “Song of Moses” in Exodus 15. (Which Miriam taught to many and it became part of the celebration of the people.) This song, though, is not just celebratory. It is also a warning song. The layout matches a “lawsuit” format, where Moses presents God’s allegations against Israel.

The Song should be seen as a proactive warning, though, and not a reaction. At least not as of yet: Moses is presenting the past of Israel and the potential future of Israel. If they heed Deuteronomy 32:2, though, they will avoid this collapse. This is, practically speaking, the consequences side of the “Terms and Conditions,” spelling out how a breach of the covenant will be handled.

As to the poetic or musical nature of the Song of Moses, it is evidenced by the Hebrew form. Beyond that, we do not have a tune or instrumentation for the Song. Taking apart all of the imagery would be the work of much more time than we have here. One aspect that stands out is how often God is referred to as the Rock.

In Focus:

Rather than take a portion of the Song, which is well worth your time, I’d like to draw your attention to Deuteronomy 32:46-7. Moses has not written this for the purpose of indicting the people. He is striving to remind them and provide the path to walk in obedience and avoid the negative side of these events.

This is why it’s recorded in a song type. It’s easier to remember that way, and from the song that should be on everyone’s lips in recitation, they will find a reminder to go back to the Law and the full covenant. As Moses reminds them, this is not just words. This is their life, the totality of who they are as God’s people: the work God has done in their lives and the worship they owe him in their life.

In Practice:

Practically speaking, the first question for us is “What drives our music?” This is valid whether we are talking about church music, music we listen to as Christians, or music in general. What drives it? Are we driven to listen to what we ought to be? Driven to listen to what we are? Or what we shouldn’t be? Do we let what we take in bring to mind the fullness of our life or push us away from it?

Second, what is the fullness of our life? Is it the stuff we have or the relationship we have with God? And keep in mind: there is precious little here about an “individual relationship with God.” This is the stuff of a group of people walking before God together. Are we doing that? Or are we trying our hand at solo Christianity?

Third, we can look ahead and see the consequences of willful disobedience, just like the Israelites could. Do we avoid it? Or plunge right into it?

In Nerdiness:

Notice the next step is for Moses to die and hand off leading the people. I also find some interesting thoughts to the shift from “Lord said to Moses…” to “Moses spoke…” While it’s all inspired by God, there is almost a different feel to the Mosaic summary.

Share the Word: Deuteronomy 31

In Summary:

Moses has very little time left in the story. His story draws to an end with the close of the Pentateuch and has only three chapters left. He has led Israel out Egypt and up to the Promised Land. The story now focuses on him personally rather than the nation as a whole.

Deuteronomy 31 features the beginning of Moses’ closing words to Israel. This chapter is headed by an important distinction: these are the words of Moses to all Israel, rather than Moses speaking for the Lord. That is an important distinction, although my belief in all of the Bible as inspired by God leads me to see this still as God’s Word. Prior to this chapter, Moses has given the official terms and conditions of the covenant.

Here we see the beginning of his summary of those terms. Think of it like this: there are long, wordy terms and conditions for the software you use. I can sum it up: don’t make illegal copies of the software, don’t break it down to make your own version, don’t expect it to do more than it claims, don’t expect the company to pay you for it not doing what it should do, and don’t expect the company to provide you a new computer if it breaks yours.

One of those is the legal covenant for using iTunes. The other is my synopsis. Both are accurate—this is the best analogy to what we see Moses do in the first portion of Deuteronomy 31.

The second portion records the Lord’s (YHWH)’s words to Moses about what the future holds for Israel. It’s a disturbing look at the future of apostasy and failure. God gives a command to Moses to write a song for the Israelites to remember the covenant by, and the commissions Joshua to take charge of Israel. The song is Deuteronomy 32, so we’ll see that later.

In Focus:

Focus in on Deuteronomy 31:9 for a moment. Moses has written out the Law. He now gives a copy to the Levites who carry the Ark and “to all the elders,” likely meaning that they are witnesses to the event. It is also possible that there are additional copies which are entrusted to the leadership of the community while one is preserved in the Ark.

Is it important? This is recorded twice in this chapter (Deuteronomy 31:26,) with this second time highlighting the evidentiary purpose of the preservation. The Ark-held copy is for a witness against the Israelites, in the days when they abandon the covenant.

In Practice:

Practically speaking, the first item we should see is that the covenant and its written record belong to the people, not to just one person. The idea we can copy here is that no one person—be it a Moses or a Joshua—should possess the Word of God and block the access of others to it. Why? Partly because all of us are accountable to the Word of God. This is part of the Christian heritage of our nation, as well: the rule of law.

As an aside: we are not in a rule of the majority nation. We are in a rule of law nation. The majority voices their opinion to make the law, but then the law rules. Otherwise there is chaos—and someone claiming to be popular can subvert the reality. Further, the law rules and prohibits the majority from making abusive decisions to the detriment of the minorities.

Next piece of practical results? This: the consistent presence of the Word of God is a witness against us, His covenant people, for our failure to keep that covenant. We live in a Bible-rich age and our lives are Bible-poor. That should not be.

Finally, there is the ever-present reminder here that generations follow after generations. Let us not assume we are the first to follow Jesus nor that we will be the last. Let us learn from those who have entrusted the task to us, and then let us entrust the task onward!


In Nerdiness:

Of all the laws Moses restates in the first part of Deuteronomy 31, he picks remission of debts in Deuteronomy 31:10. Think on what that means for how we handle economics.

Clear Covenant Choices: Deuteronomy 30

In Summary:

We are nearing the end of Deuteronomy. By extension, that means we are also near the end of the Pentateuch and soon to move out of the books of Moses. Deuteronomy 30 is actually the end of the covenant message from YHWH through Moses to the people. The remaining chapters are Moses’ final charge and blessing to the people and the account of his death.

A belief in the inspiration of Scripture guides to me to recognize that even those chapters are part of God’s Word. If we were doing Old Testament History and Theology, though, we would cutoff God’s covenant with Israel with the end of chapter 30.

What is in Deuteronomy 30? The summary of the blessings that will come from obedience, and the solemn warning that the Lord God Almighty is serious about this situation. Some of the promises here can be misapplied, as God promises a level of prosperity to the obedient Israelites, to mean that believers in Jesus will never have problems. That is unsupported in this text, as these promises are clearly related to covenant Israel in that era.

If you want to take it literally, you’ll have to be satisfied with cattle and life on a farm. That’s the prosperity in view here: olives for you and all the sheep you can sacrifice.

In Focus:

Laying that aside, Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is our focus for the day. What do we find here?

First, we see the challenge of covenant keeping. V. 11 tells the Israelites that the covenant is not too difficult for them. This verse should be kept in mind as we look back at the Old Testament: it was not an impossible task, for God was in their midst. Covenant abandonment by Israel was willful on their part, not fated.

Second, we see the challenge of covenant knowledge. Vv. 12-13 remind the Israelites that they do not have to travel to the ends of the earth or the heights of the heavens to find out what God has to say. They have that knowledge, right there in front of them.

Third, we see the challenge of covenant clarity. V. 14 shows us they could see and understand the covenant. God’s Word was near to them—it was their choices that would decide this.

In Practice:

Practically, the same three things echo to us today: covenant knowledge, covenant clarity, and covenant keeping.

First, we know the covenant of God. For us, it is that Jesus has said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” (John 14:6). That knowledge is readily available to many of us—and most of us that have such knowledge are aware of our responsibility to spread it! Have you learned of God’s great love for you and His sacrifice? If you have…who have you told lately? One cannot keep a covenant one does not know!

Second, we have the covenant clarified for us in Scripture. It is not about sheep or goats or even about land. It is all about Jesus, the One who died for us. Are we walking with Him as He clearly commands us?

Third, we have the covenant to keep. The Holy Spirit dwells within all believers in Jesus—but we continue to claim the covenant is too hard for us! It is not impossible, for Christ in us makes it attainable that we might obey!

In Nerdiness:

A brief note: the calling of “heaven and earth” as witnesses seals the covenant treaty. These witnesses are called again in Prophets when the Israelites are not keeping the covenant! Isaiah 1 and Micah 1 are good examples of this.

No Heart: Deuteronomy 29

In Summary:

Deuteronomy 29 turns from a general retelling of the covenant (note the similarity of Deuteronomy 29:1 and Deuteronomy 1:1) to the last words of Moses before his death. Prior to this point, Moses has presented the covenant between Israel and God according to the typical treaties between sovereigns and subjects of the time.

These next chapters take more of a personal turn, as Moses reminds the people what has happened under his leadership. We see, as final words should be, reminders of critical moments and very direct warnings about the future.

For example, Deuteronomy 29:5 reminds us of Deuteronomy 8:4, that the shoes and clothes of the Israelites did not wear out during their wanderings. The next verse, 29:6, highlights that the Israelites have not eaten bread for the last 40 years. This connects back to chapter 8 as well, and we see again the importance of context. “Man does not live by bread alone” was not merely a thought. It was the life of the Israelites. They lived by the Word of God, given in as manna in the desert.

In Focus:

Moses gives us a tragic statement in Deuteronomy 29:4, and it pairs with Deuteronomy 29:19 as a warning about the hearts of the people. As you read through this section, recognize the problem at stake. The people have not developed their own love for God or His ways at this point.

All of God’s work in their lives, and yet their hearts are closed. Their eyes do not see, their ears do not hear the truth of who God is. Now, there are a couple of ways to read this. Some will see this as the fact that without the Holy Spirit quickening the hearts of people, they have no hope of understanding and worshiping the One True God. Others will see it as evidence of the hardness of the people, that even with every action of God around them, they chose not to see.

I’ll not resolve that here, except that I think this is a both/and, not an either/or. The power of God is necessary to see the work of God, yet people still choose to ignore what should be clear. That comes out plainly in Romans 1. How, exactly, the sovereignty of God is true while human free responsibility is also true is the work of books, not a blog post.

What we see here is the Israelites as responsible for their failure to worship, even while acknowledging that it takes a heart from God to develop a heart for God.

In Practice:

We should, then, lay back and do nothing, hoping God fixes us?

Nonsense!

We should: 1. Look at the world around us. Start with the explanation that an all-powerful, all-loving God is involved in life.

2: Center our worship on Him for who He is. We see who He is by His actions, just like our actions reveal our character, but we need to put our focus on the right place. We love God for who He is. We see that by what He does. Don’t worship God that God feeds you. Worship God for His compassion that He shows by feeding you.

3. Pass on the covenant. This chapter resounds with the concern that future generations will abandon the Lord God, thinking that they had it all together. Pass on the covenant by demonstrating, daily, your own dependence on God. Too many of us want the veneer of self-sufficiency to show more than the framework of faith—peel it back, let your needs and the One who supplies them be evident.

In Nerdiness:

Let’s get nerdy: 1: Take a look at the parallel passages, including how Deuteronomy 29:2 parallels with Deuteronomy 5:1. Oh, and note that the Hebrew texts tend to put our 29:1 as the last verse in 28, and start this chapter at 29:2. And call it 29:1.

Moses gives another rehash of history here, including the recent defeats of Sihon and Og.

No bread, no wine, no “fermented drink” (possibly the fortified beer of the labor forces of Ancient Egypt). Does this mean that the Israelites had no yeast? If you look at the Passover, they were to get all of the leaven out of the house to celebrate it. Now we see that, for nearly 4 decades, they have had no yeast-based products. Since yeast is a living thing, is it possible that the conditions of the Exodus and Wanderings kept them from having any useful yeast?

And then the symbolism of yeast/leaven for impurity makes this theologically curious…

Blessed or Not: Deuteronomy 28

In Summary:

Deuteronomy 28 continues the storyline from Deuteronomy 27. Moses commands the people to gather at Shechem and recite both curses and blessings from Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. This is done with the Ark of the Covenant in the middle of the people, symbolizing the presence of God Almighty in the process.

These blessings and curses are given as the consequences for covenant-keeping. If the Israelites keep the covenant, then the blessings will apply. If they reject the covenant, then the people will face the curses. There are significant predictive concepts in the curses. Deuteronomy 28:36, for example, speaks of the king which Israel won’t have for another 400 years. Further difficulties are foreseen, including cannibalism and plagues like Egypt faced. The capstone of the curses is a forced return to Egypt (Deuteronomy 28:68) as slaves, but slaves without owners.

While these curses are comprehensive, let us dispense quickly with a few important facts. First, we should most likely see this as fulfilled in the life of Israel in the ancient world. Israel’s fall to Assyria in 722 BC and Judah’s fall in 586 BC are candidates for this, as is the Roman forced diaspora in 135-140 AD after the Second Jewish Revolt. There is no justification in these curses for willful anti-Semitism. Second, we should see this as predictive by the power of God, not as written retrospectively.

In Focus:

Draw your eyes back to the first portion of the chapter. In 68 verses, 14 relate to blessing and the rest to curses, but let us look closely at the blessings. Deuteronomy 28:2 speaks of blessings “overtaking” the people. This does parallel with the opening verses on curses, where the curses will “overtake” the people in 28:15. More importantly, though, this speaks of the inescapable truth that obeying God would bring blessing on the people.

The idea is that the blessing of God is comprehensive. It surrounds not only what you do, but where you go. It is not just for the people of Israel that day, but all of their offspring. And the end result?

The peoples of the earth will fear Israel and recognize YHWH as the Great God. (Deuteronomy 28:10).

In short, blessing comes through obedience for the purpose of the glory of God. The purpose is not the benefit of people. That is just the means to the greater end.

In Practice:

Let’s kill one practical step quickly: in reference to material prosperity, these verses relate to national Israel. Not to you. This passage does not endorse a personal wealth result from walking with Jesus. Not at all. Our results from walking with Jesus should be expected by His words: “you will have tribulation.” (John 16:33). Or perhaps the experience of the apostles in Acts 14:22, referring to hardships for entering the Kingdom.

Instead, substitute these practical expectations:

1. There is a natural structure of consequences from results. Disobedience will bring worse results, in time, than obedience brings. Looking through the lens of eternity, remember this in your personal life. There is more at stake than just right now.

2. When God’s people are gathered, the blessings of obedience multiply, but so do the curses of disobedience. When the church is gathered, though this passage is about Israel and not the church, the concept applies. One sinful person in a church may not bring great curse upon it, but a church which adopts of culture of sin will face God’s judgment, including its ultimate destruction.

3. Again, drawing from the principle, one can imagine that any nation which openly flaunts the righteousness of God should expect similar consequences. 

In Nerdiness:  

It’s hard to do justice to this passage. The totality of the destruction envisioned in the curses, compared to the blessings, reflects the holistic nature of the Law, the Covenant, and the People.

One thing that you should notice in study is the parallel structure of the first sections. The blessings will be exactly countered by the curses. Further, one can see how badly life will turn. If we take this passage and place it into 2 Kings, we see just how terrible the fall of Israel truly was.

Know it and Do it: Deuteronomy 27

In Summary:

We will finish the Pentateuch someday in this series. We will finish the Pentateuch someday in this series. Fortunately, the Minor Prophets are shorter.

Deuteronomy 27 sits on the edge of the Promised Land with the people of Israel and Moses. The elders of the people are involved as well as Moses (Deuteronomy 27:1), reflecting the upcoming leadership transition. The commandments of God are referenced here, and then critical ones are restated.

The chapter points strongly to the idea that the Law of God needed to be known by the people. You have a command to write it on a large stone monument—and to write it “distinctly” (Deuteronomy 27:8). Then you have the plan for the people’s recitation of certain parts of the Law. This included proclaiming together that those who forsook the Law were cursed. Not just in trouble, because “cursed” carries with it the idea of divine sanction.

The Law, though, was supposed to be two things. The first is clear. We often fuss about some of the odd details, but those details prevented someone slipping through the loopholes. The second is this: the Law should be known. If people don’t know you cannot hold them to it!

In Focus:

Turn your focus to Deuteronomy 27:9-10. We can see here that the Israelites were learning from an oral presentation, even though it would be written down as well. They were going to be responsible to listen well and remember, passing on what they heard and knew.

Now, back your focus up to Deuteronomy 27:5-7. This portion seems unrelated to the former passage, commanding that the altar of God be built with natural stones rather than dressed ones. In short, because there was no way for a craftsman to improve on God’s work. Nor should anyone build the altar such that they take credit for it.

In Practice:

Where these two intersect best is in the practice of the principle. Even living in a world with the maxim to “believe none of what you hear and half of what you see,” we still lean heavily on word of mouth for information. Don’t believe me? What do you think a review of a restaurant, movie, or business is? Word of mouth. Just because you’ve typed it out doesn’t make it more reliable.

In truth, a world with an unlimited supply of photons to generate Internet words means that today’s web words are on par with prior generations’ spoken hearsay. It’s just words, which we must discern the truth or falsehood of, based on wisdom. We share with Ancient Israel being a word-based culture. This is true in most areas, including religion.

And so we come to the altar. Fortunately, because Jesus died for our sins (see Hebrews…and the Gospels,) we don’t have to build a literal altar. But we can look at the principle of leaving God’s work to stand on its own. This is true of His Work, and His Word.

Consider this: we think that somehow, we can embellish, we can dress up, God’s Word so that people will like it better. Perhaps the Good Lord has been a bit rough around the edges, given a jagged look to the obedience called for. Let’s clean Him up a bit, round it off.

After all, people don’t need to know the unvarnished version. Let’s make it smooth. Except we are responsible for the words, and we are responsible to both the Lord God and the ones who hear us. Let us be certain we’ve got it right.

In Nerdiness:

I’m coming to agree with the idea that Deuteronomy may have been the first book of the Pentateuch written, at least in basic form. Then the rest was written/dictated by Moses to fill out all that occurred. At the very least, it should not be seen as a second telling like we normally call it. Most likely, Deuteronomy is the compact form of the Law for the people, with the finer points explained in Leviticus and Numbers for teaching and administration. Much like our legal system: murder is illegal. Everyone should know that. How does the statute describe murder? Much more in-depth. What do I need to know? That murder is illegal, but my lawyer may need more information.

Giving: Deuteronomy 26

In Summary:

Deuteronomy 26 is focused on material giving. It is one of several areas in the Old Testament that take note of the practice of tithing. Others are found in Leviticus 27, Numbers 19, and Deuteronomy 14.

Tithing is also referenced in Malachi 3 but given that Malachi comes some 1,000 years after Deuteronomy, that’s not as useful in helping see what Moses is speaking of. Malachi relies on the Mosaic commands, because otherwise it just makes no sense at all.

The word itself needs this explanation: “tithe” comes from an Old English word for “tenth,” and translates a Hebrew word for “tenth.” A “tithe” is always a tenth of something, and the word occurs in multiple contexts. There is no requirement that a “tithe” be a religious word—see 1 Samuel 8 or J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Return of the King for examples.

Deuteronomy 26 addresses not only tithing, though. It opens with the instruction to take of the “first fruits” of the ground after the conquest and offering them to Lord God. This offering does not use the term “tithe.” Instead, it uses “some.” This reflects a different emphasis: tithing was ongoing and done as part of the covenant. Deuteronomy 26 spawns an annual festival, but it does not command it. Instead I see this as setting up a commanded initial celebration after the conquest.

How so? Other passages command the annual tithes, but this speaks of “when you enter the land” and “take…the first of all the produce.” This reads to me as if it were establishing a celebration not only of the conquest of the land, but of God’s provision of establishing normal life.

The same could be said of the “third year” tithe, at least as described here. In those first three years, the Levites, orphans, widows, and so forth would not have been able to establish their own holdings as well as the people had. The Levites would have been busy helping teach and establish the legal/government systems. Widows and orphans would have been allotted land initially, but whatever tragedy turned them into widows and orphans would likely have harmed their ability to feed themselves. This “third year” would have been a moment to stop and notice those whose first years in the Promised Land had not gone well.

In all, this chapter speaks of a set of specific giving requirements, but the application of them today is likely doubtful. Except for what I will put in focus today.

In Focus:

The middle of this chapter deals not with what one gives, but addresses what one says when he gives it. The formula of “My father was a wandering Aramean…” sets up the reciting of the history of the people of Israel. It’s a history different than we tend to think of, as it is a history reflecting the unmerited favor that God poured out on them throughout the time from Abraham until Moses.

It is a speech of gratitude and of remembrance. In it, the Israelite is reminded that he wasn’t alone in this world. And he hadn’t pulled himself up by his own sandal straps. It was the grace of the Almighty who brought him there.

In Practice:

We’re not Israelites possessing the land in 1400 BC. Most of us are not even first-generation people in our own country. We’ve started off better than a new wave of immigrants would have.

The same is true spiritually, as well. We have churches and fellow believers to connect with. Even those who are first-generation believers can still find long-running disciples to learn from. We still, though, should remember that apart from the grace of God, we really don’t have much at all. What, then do we do? As always, I’ve got some suggestions:

1. Don’t separate financial/material giving from your faith heritage. There is a growing tendency to pull finances out of the behavior of the body of Christ. While I respect the privacy of people in their giving (I really do not want to know who gives or how much), not connecting that aspect of life with the rest of our worship isn’t wise for making disciples. We need to make whole-life disciples, and that includes material.

2. Giving should come from a grateful heart, not from a guilt-driven life. I understand Scripture to set forth a standard that we should follow, but it should be a gratitude that drives us. Not guilt response or attempting to buy the favor of God.

3. Material blessings come in many forms, not just literal fruit but also the fruit of our labor. The joy of worship through giving is not reserved to those who have farms.


In Nerdiness: 

It’s already pretty nerdy in here, with positing a different take on Deuteronomy 26. The alternate, and standard, view is that this chapter commands establishment of a yearly tithe and and triennial social needs tithe. This is, like I said, the normal view. It all hinges on the interaction between this chapter and the remainder of the passages relating to tithing and giving.

Measure Once: Deuteronomy 25

In Summary:

Back to the Old Testament. We’re closing in on being done with the Pentateuch. It feels like 40 years wandering in the wilderness to get this far, but we will make it!

Today’s chapter is Deuteronomy 25. It starts off with instructions about judicial punishments, and finishes with a reminder to eliminate the Amalekites. In between we have the law relating to marrying your brother’s widow and laws about fair dealing in business. It’s a busy chapter.

In Focus:

Finding a focal point here was challenging. After all, with such variety of information I could land just about anywhere. And easily miss something useful.

Let’s put our focus on Deuteronomy 25:13-16. This is a section commanding the Israelites to have a single standard of weights and measures. That’s right.

Weights and measures. Just as we now have a standard “pound,” “cup,” or “gallon,” the Israelites were to keep a stable standard. This is quite beneficial for economic growth, but more than that, it’s fair. Just plain fair. Why?

Because if you did a shekel’s worth of work, you should get a shekel’s worth of pay. And it should not be found out that you went to work for a guy with a shekel that was half the size of his neighbor’s.

It is also worth noting that the context puts this instruction alongside the reminder about the Amalekites picking off the weaker members of Israel during the Exodus. This opens the door to understanding economic fairness as related to defending the weaker members of society—not those who are willfully lazy but those who are “faint and weary” from life’s difficulties.


In Practice:

There are a couple of practical aspects to a commanded standard of weights and measures. First, though, we should notice that God does not command what those measures should be. Only that they should be the same—so the Israelites could have gone Metric if they chose, as long as they were standardized.

The first benefit is one we don’t often associate with the Old Testament. There is a scientific benefit to standard weights and measures. It’s critical to measure and compare for science—be it simple metallurgy (which leads to chemistry) or geography—one needs to know that you have a “mile” that’s just like the next person’s “mile.” Or shekel, mina, etc…

The second benefit is in construction. If you need a pound of concrete per square foot to support the road traffic, that standard should be the same.

Then there is the most obvious: in trade. It’s only fair to know that a pound’s a pound, no matter where you are. (Unless you’re on the Moon.)

Why? Because we ought to deal with all people fairly. And if there is only one measure even in your house, then you have no risk of accidentally defrauding someone. It should be clear through this passage as it is in others, God is concerned with how we treat one another.

Pay attention to that, and do not let a desire for gain destroy your relationships.

In Nerdiness: 

I’ve a pair of nerdy things today.

First, look at the commands to eliminate the Amalekites. Then look at 1 Samuel 15. See the connection from here to King Agag? Now look on at Esther and the enemy of the Jews, Haman the “Agagite.” There are some who draw a connection all the way from here to Haman. I don’t know if that’s truly supportable, but it’s there.

Second, look at the commands about marital law and marrying one’s brother’s widow. See that the instruction for the scorned woman is that she is to take off her brother-in-law’s sandal and spit in his face? Now, look ahead at Ruth 4. Note that the legality regarding marrying Ruth involves a deliberate exchange of sandals. I can’t substantiate it with any documents, but I think there could be legal evolution where what was the shameful punishment for dereliction of duty came to symbolize the willful passing of that duty—if there was a taker.

As to the whole part about cutting off a woman’s hand for grabbing the genitals of a man her husband is fighting with? I’m thinking that’s mainly a warning to just stay out of fights. Perhaps an application is that one may not use ‘any means’ to end a fight that is not fatal. But I’m staying out of that too much…

Beating the Trees: Deuteronomy 24

In Summary:

We’re still dealing with the various laws necessary for running a nation in Deuteronomy 24. This chapter gives us another look at family law, some finance law, criminal law, and health law. It’s a great mixture of items from everyday life in Israel.

First we have the instructions regarding divorce including the prohibition that a woman divorced by her first husband who then marries another cannot go back to the first husband. I’ll not pretend to know exactly how these laws fleshed out in reality, or even how often it was necessary to enforce them! But I know this: God took, and takes, marriage seriously. Even 3,500 years ago He put restrictions on divorce and the general idea of just trading partners for a time. We ought to remember that.

Then we see one of my favorite verses in Deuteronomy 24:5 where a newlywed is released from duty, both military and non-military, for the first year of marriage. Why? To give happiness to his wife. It’s worth remembering that the initial investment in a relationship will strengthen it later.

We then get various other laws, from constraints on lending practices to bans on kidnapping. All of these weave together to remind the people of Israel that other folks matter, too. Whether they are women, poor, hired help, aliens, orphans (wait, aliens? I still laugh…) people that were not the power holders were still worthwhile.

In Focus:

Trees, on the other hand, were apparently not that big a deal. Taking a look at 24:20, we see that it was considered appropriate to beat olive trees. That’s because there was no advocacy group in Ancient Israel for olive trees…or, perhaps, because the reference is to the process of knocking loose olives to harvest. The first pass was enough, after that anything left behind was for the needy.

In Practice:

What do we do with this in practice?

First, recognize that words have shades of meaning. “Beat” is one of those words—applied to a human being, it’s bad. Really bad. Applied to an olive tree? Not bad. I stand ready to be corrected by the first ent that comes along, but trees aren’t the same as people.

Second, be cautious not to make everything perfectly efficient. It was the inefficiency of manual harvesting, both of olives and grains, that enabled Old Testament Israel’s system of providing for the poor. Is it possible that our interest in efficiency has numbed our compassion? Or at least trimmed off our ability to show it?

Third, as we see constantly in the Israelite system, charity is not intended to become a simple handout. Instead, it was designed to keep an individual’s dignity intact and prevent society from looking down on them.

Therefore, let us remember those ideas. There are people that need help—find a way to help them. But over time, we must address the systems that dehumanize those in need and come back to treating people like people. Because even aliens are people :)

In Nerdiness: 

I’m really running short on nerd thoughts out of this. The reminder of Miriam refers back to Numbers 12. Also of note is the idea that “sons not be put to death for the sins of their fathers” and vice versa in v. 16. This echoes forward to Ezekiel 18 and addresses individual responsibility.

Excluded: Deuteronomy 23

In Summary:

Well, Deuteronomy 23 is ahead of us today. It opens with a challenging verse and does not get much easier to consider until near the end. The first section of this chapter deals with people who are to be excluded from the assembly of Israel. The mixture of prohibitions here are somewhat confusing, and all carry cause for alarm to the modern sensitivities. After all, one cannot choose to be born Edomite and not Moabite. And the troubling Deuteronomy 23:1 (which I’d prefer not to think much about) makes no loophole for accidental emasculation. No matter how it happens, one is excluded from the assembly. There is something to consider about the connection between Deuteronomy 23:1 and Galatians 5:12, but we’ll leave that to one side for the time being.

Another theme of this chapter is the presence of God among the Israelites, though that is common refrain among the writing in Deuteronomy. The idea that one needs to use proper latrine techniques strikes me as humorous, and yet Moses connects it to the presence of God. That is a way to look at life we often avoid: God is present at all times.

The last thing I’ll take note of here are the commands to allow Egyptians, eventually, into the assembly and to not return fugitive slaves who come to Israel. Both of these were in response to the time the Israelites spent in slavery in Egypt. Essentially, once it was clear than an Egyptian was not from those who had oppressed Israel, they could become part of the people of God. And fugitive slaves were to always be welcome, because the Israelites were former slaves.

In Focus:

Let’s focus on the end of the chapter. Specifically, Deuteronomy 23:21-23 where the Law specifies rapid fulfillment of vows made to the Lord. The people of Israel have, at this point, seen all of the Law and the regulations regarding vows and offerings and sacrifices. They know of required ones and voluntary ones.

The command here is that the voluntary vows should not be delayed. If one made a promise to God out of joy and not obligation, then he should fulfill it rapidly. This was not about repentance and forgiveness sacrifices, though, for not vowing would have been acceptable. These were the vows made in a freewill nature.

In Practice:

I see a couple of applications in practice. First, we see that God knows people pretty well. He knows that we are less likely to deliver the longer it has been since we made a promise or commitment. Think about your New Year’s Resolutions—if you can remember them. This is why it’s important to remind yourself of your lasting commitments on a frequent basis. More than 15 years ago I vowed to live in the covenant of marriage with Ann. I wear a reminder because it is too easy to let a commitment slip as the years go by—even great commitments like that!

Second, we see an important note for our promises to God. We ought not make promises we will not keep—it is better to leave off the promising altogether! Let your yes be yes, your no be no, and avoid bogging everything down with promises. But when you do promise? Be quick to deliver, not slow.

In Nerdiness: 

Is there something to be made of the Septuagint’s use of the word “ekklesia” for assembly here? It’s the same word used for the assembly that is the “church” in the New Testament.


Additionally, I would recommend to you C.S. Lewis’ discussion of economics based on charging interest in Mere Christianity. He raises a good question about how moral the economy can ever be if it is based on something explicitly forbidden by God to His people. If we only have one example of God establishing a nation including its civil law base, which is what we have in the establishment of Old Testament Israel, then should we not consider whether or not that informs some of our practices? Without going into theocracy/theonomy nonsense, but looking at the moral concepts. After all, many of the problems in the American economy center on lending/credit practices. Just some thoughts that need completion.

The Law: Deuteronomy 22

In Summary:

Can you tell from the infrequency of Through the Whole Bible Old Testament posts that having some difficulty finding new ways to deal with the book of Deuteronomy? If not, there’s my confession of the reality.

Deuteronomy 22 continues the codification of Israel’s laws. Here we see several aspects of morality addressed, ranging from farming regulations to sexual behavior. The ready intermingling of various subjects supports the view that the whole Law should be considered together, though there are clearly emphases that run along the traditional division points of civil, moral, and ceremonial. However, if God inspired the commandment not to plow with a mixed team (22:10) just a few sentences from commandments about dealing with marital issues, then we should be cautious about cutting our own divides.

Rather, I would suggest that the Law stands as a unit. Looking back through the New Testament, we see the Law treated in that manner: Jesus states that He came to “fulfill the Law” (Matthew 5:17.) Paul also treats the Law as a whole—we find no place in the Pauline Epistles that instructs that the “moral Law” is still to be obeyed but the other 2 parts can be shut down. Instead, Galatians 2 (and other places) appear to treat the Law as a completed event.

This develops the point I would hold: the Law exists for us as inspired Scripture, guiding us to understand the nature and character of God. From wherever in the Law one starts, one can arrive at either: Love the Lord your God with all your being (paraphrased from Matthew 22:37) or Love your neighbor as yourself (from Matthew 22:39).

We can find adequate guidance for life in these two statements, as well as clear need for salvation simply by comparing our lives to these. My need for salvation from the wrath of God has nothing to do with plowing with an ox and donkey together, but everything to do with not loving God fully…or not loving my neighbor.

In Focus:

Let’s throw Deuteronomy 22:12 under the focus for today. Here, the Lord commands that the people are to…put a tassel on each of the four corners of their garment. And, yes, Old Testament scholars remain uncertain exactly what this means. We do see traditional Judaism’s interpretations on a practical level, and it seems pretty straightforward.

The “Why?” factor for this rule is where the question comes. Attaching tassels like this would not have improved the garment, and in truth would have simply served to show that the observant Israelite was obeying God’s Law more than the fashions of the times.

In Practice:

From this, we drive the practical implication. The whims and winds of culture shift and change. As these changes occur, there is no definitive reason not to chase some of them—I’m all for eliminating the necktie from most of existence. Except for lawyers.

But through it all, those who are focused on honoring God above all else should be willing to embrace their appearance, from their outer garments inward, being different and reflecting the God they serve. Why? Because the God we serve has changed us from the innermost parts outward, and our appearance should reflect that.

Does that mean I have a list of do/don’t for fashion? Not really, except to say this: there were two highlighted commandments earlier, one about loving God and the other about loving your neighbor. Would a reasonable person question your devotion to those based on your clothing? This includes your T-shirt slogans…

In Nerdiness: 

Two quick nerdy light thoughts. First, take a look at 22:1-3 and 22:8. These inform the idea of taking responsibility to aid and protect your neighbor. How do we practice these today?

Second, in an example of stretching the interpretation of a passage, Ambrose (4th century) takes Deuteronomy 22:5 to teach that men and women have differing strengths and should behave and appear as men or women, rather trying to be something they are not. While that entire concept is its own discussion, I would point out that trying to make this verse carry that discussion is not a prudent approach to the text. With all due respect to Ambrose for many of the good things he wrote—but the Patristic/Early Imperial Eras of the Church struggled with what to do with the Old Testament Law as much as we do, and tended to make some big stretches.

CSI Israel: Deuteronomy 21

In Summary:

Remember, Israel is forming into a nation out of whole cloth here. Prior to the Exodus, they were not a nation. Instead, they were a small family group. Family rules are, by nature, quite different from national rules. Within the four walls of your home, you can overlook offenses that cannot be overlooked in large scale—and you can punish those that appear minor but reveal major character issues.

This chapter, then, is part of addressing those types of concerns. We can assume that some of the situations eventually happened, but others may not have occurred. We see regulations for dealing with unsolved murders, captives from conquest, inheritance issues, and rebellious children. The hodgepodge that is Deuteronomy 21 reminds us, first of all, that God’s law roams into all forms of life.

While I find the rules about unsolved murders at the beginning of the chapter quite fascinating, it’s hard to make a direct application of this point. I would suggest the thrust here is this: all lives are important to God. Even if the perpetrator is unknown, society bears guilt for murder and that must be atoned for. Death matters, loss of life matters.

There is also something to be said about the rebellious children segment. It is clear from the infractions mentioned that the “children” in view are not minors. After all, gluttony and drunkenness are adult behaviors—a child cannot participate in those without serious enabling on the part of parents, and the requirement he be taken to the city council of elders would shield against parents shuffling off their responsibilities like that. We need to see from this that parents should raise their children to serve God, which in turn serves the community.

In Focus:

In the middle, though, there are two segments dealing with the treatment of women. They are significant for a couple of reasons. First, we see how a captive woman taken as a wife was to be treated. Second, we see how the offspring of polygamy were to be treated. The latter is easier to address than the former. Polygamy is addressed here as a possible reality but not an approved idea. Further, the assumption is that one wife will be more loved than another, and that the human tendency will be to take it out on the children. (See: Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah.) God clearly declares this to be unacceptable behavior.

This dovetails into the section on the treatment of women taken as wives from battle captives. It is likely that taking wives from captives resulted in polygamous situations and the resultant problem addressed in 15-17.

More than that, though, is the troubling idea of women being forced into marriage. One can accept that marriage was better than slavery, which itself is better than slaughter, but that hardly salves the conscience. This does not sound right. Likely the best response is to see God’s law here as restraining the Israelites from typical behavior of the time.

The Law (not always the practices) of Israel links sexual activity with marriage. Therefore Israel is here forbidden from taking part in the typical “conquer, pillage, and rape,” of a victorious army. If a man sees a woman in the captives he wants, he has to: provide her a home, new clothes (don’t take ‘remove her captive clothes’ as ‘sit around unclothed’ but as ‘replace her clothing’) and a month for you to think about it. That restrains the impulses—and then, if you’re not happy, she goes free as any other Israelite woman would, not as a slave in your home.

And, with that in view, if she has children and your first wife (most of the warriors would have been old enough to be married, at the least) has children, the children must be treated equally.

In Practice:

Obviously, we can’t quite apply this literally. Please do not read this passage and think that God approves of taking women captive in war and making them be your wife. That may have been acceptable, based on the above, in the old covenant. It is not Christian behavior. In fact, we have made not a few mistakes trying to apply Old Testament warfare concepts to Christian living. I digress.

Practically speaking: overall, this chapter speaks to the humanization of people. It’s easy to forget that the stranger who is murdered, the woman who is captured, the scorned wife and her children, are real people with real needs. It’s easy to judge the importance of a life compared to its value to us.

That’s exactly the opposite of how we should practice. Each life matters. Even those with no direct value to you. All people count.

Treat them as such.

In Nerdiness: 

I like the CSI image of Deuteronomy 21:1-7. You’ve got the forensic analysts trying to sort out just who has to deal with this murder.

And it leads me to wonder…does this develop into the concept of jurisdictional limits and ranges for law enforcement today? Going back into the English Common Law system that ours is adapted out of, did they structure investigative authority similarly to this passage, where the “nearest” municipality had to determine the murderer?

If Mel Starr is right in the Hugh de Singleton series, there is some connection. Would be worth nerding up about.

Consider Victory: Deuteronomy 20

In Summary:

Deuteronomy 20 is a chapter that is very tempting to skip over. It’s a summary of the laws of war for the people of Israel. They break down into the laws governing who should fight, how you should fight, and what to do in victory.

One of the major questions that arises from a chapter like this stems from the commands found in 20:13 and 20:16-17. In these passages, God commands that the Israelites kill either all the men of the city, or all the inhabitants of a city.

This bothers us. And it should. Human life is precious. All human life, even the lives of our enemies in war, should be valued and killing should be seen as the last resort, not the first response. To get to the bottom of this, we have to answer a question: Why do we think all human life is precious?

The answer might not be clear to you, but it’s this: all life is precious because God said so. (Genesis 9:5-6, Exodus 20, the Gospel all come to mind). Our cultural values are founded in God’s Word, but like the foundation of our homes, we often overlook that truth. We just know that our culture says killing is bad—and killing everyone is worse!

If we pay attention to our thinking, though, we realize that if life has value because God said so, then God is permitted to revoke that declaration. Those who have violated God’s laws, He is righteous when judgment falls. This is true whether it falls individually or corporately.

In Focus:

Let us put a slightly odd pair of verses in focus. Take a look at Deuteronomy 20:19-20. These verses about…trees.

That’s right, trees. The same chapter that provides Biblical support for massive siege warfare also points out that the Israelites were not at war with the trees. They should leave the trees alone.

Peeling back, though, we see that it’s not about all the trees. It’s just about the trees that produce food. The NASB uses “fruit tree” but the more literal rendering is “trees for food,” so nut trees would be in view as well.

The recognition here is that trees take time to grow. There is no purpose in setting the economy of a conquered area back at least three years just to win the battle.

In Practice:

Obviously, one practice that should come from this chapter is a prohibition of scorched-earth style warfare. What this says of how we have fought and won wars in the past as a nation needs a book-length treatment, but there’s something to consider there.

Second, though, we should examine how this applies into our interactions with other people. Most of us do not fight physical wars everyday, but we interact with others and have conflict.

There is conflict between Christians and the world we live in. Often, we engage in discussions and politics as if we have no concern for the long-lasting damage we are doing to people by our behaviors.

And if it’s possible to be worse, it’s worse within our own Christian churches. We strip mine everything around us just to win arguments.

Instead, we need to consider this question: what happens after we win? Is there anything left?

Truth matters and is worth fighting for. The method matters, though, and that’s what needs considered.

In Nerdiness: Consider the reality of fighting wars only with those who are not scared. What would that involve?

Then remember: fear, in this case, was due to lack of faith. As we stand forward for Christ, let us not be fearful due to lack of faith!

A Place of Refuge: Deuteronomy 19

In Summary:

Establishing the nation of Israel is no picnic. Deuteronomy 19 lays down principles for the judicial system. Both of the major concepts in this chapter related to slowing down the wheels of justice to ensure they don’t turn too fast and run over the innocent.

Two concepts are in view here. The first is the cities of refuge. This idea went hand-in-hand with the principle of personal retribution in the justice system. It was the right and responsibility of the near relatives of a murder victim to bring the murderer to justice. They were to bring him before the city elders and be the first hand to strike in execution—and if he would not be brought, then they could utilize appropriate force to bring him. This might lead to his death, but that was the nature of the situation.

Note that the above paragraph is a synthesis of my understanding of Deuteronomy and what I have read regarding social customs of the time. There is not specific chapter and verse for that exact sentiment.

Unfortunately, though, accidents happen. Sometimes those accidents cost people their lives. In a loved one’s anguish over the death of their father, brother, friend, one could expect an overreaction to these accidents. One could expect that people, in their frustration, might not be cautious in apprehending the killer or in making sure he returned to face justice alive. What should the accused do in that case?

This is where the cities of refuge came in: these were defined locations where an accused person could flee. Once within the walls of a city of refuge, they were safe until a trial could be conducted. If truly guilty, then justice was still fulfilled. If they were innocent, then justice was still fulfilled.

We also see the second concept: the importance of trustworthy witnesses. While the principle of “two or more witnesses” is abused by some today to escape justice for secret sin, it is still an important concept. One must examine the trustworthiness of witnesses before rendering a final judgment. This was established to prevent one person’s lies to cost another their life. Even so, accusations were still to be considered: justice required the guilty party be found. If a lying witness, then so be it. If a criminal, so be it.

In Focus:

In focus, look at Deuteronomy 18:8-10. These verses command the Israelites that the opportunity for justice and mercy should expand with their territory. Rather than locking into the confines of the original law, the Israelites were to recognize the principle behind that law and act on it. Instead of staying with three cities, they were to add three more. This is actually fulfilled in the occupation, as the Israelites set aside three on each side of the Jordan River.

In Practice:

What does this look like in practice for us?

First: justice, mercy, and truth go together. The principle here is that justice cannot be obtained based on lies. Further, that we must be merciful until there is a point of certainty regarding guilt. These three concepts go together. Are we living that way?

Second: individual justice and community righteousness go together. There is nothing here that supports visiting punishment on an innocent person because someone needs to pay for a bad thing. That’s not an option. The wicked must be punished, but the innocent also must not. Are we living that way? Are we pushing society to work in that way?

In Nerdiness:

A short note on Deuteronomy 19:14 for the nerds: how does not moving the ancient boundary stone apply today? Is it relevant in recognizing traditions or ideas passed on from prior generations?

Prophets or not? Deuteronomy 18

In Summary: When you set up a national religion, you have to give thought to the succeeding generations. After all, there is always the hope and intention that your religion will carry on. This is the case whether you are dealing with true religion, mistaken religion, or cruising out with deliberately false religion.

When that religion is started up with miraculous events, it increases your troubles. After all, not everyone was a witness to those moments. What happens when someone else claims to have seen a burning bush or turned a staff into a snake and back? All they might have would be…a stick. The same signs that Moses said sent him out in the first place could easily be picked up by someone else.

You need a filter, a test that ensures your next generation leader is not pulling you away from the truths of yesterday. Keep in mind, we are dealing with the truths that we held yesterday. Truth is unchanging—opinions may shift but truth endures. For example, it is a truth that there is a God. That is, if there is a God, God existed yesterday, today, and exists forever, because the nature of “God” is eternal and everlasting.

(You might argue that I think it’s a truth, but by nature I would suggest most claims of existence/non-existence of deity are claims of truth.)

It is an opinion that God prefers music with guitar to music with accordion. Those are differences of opinion, and not of truth. The opinions of a religion may change as the years go by without altering the fundamental truth of the idea. Christianity is no different: truth is unchanging.

What, then, do you do when someone posits a change to the fundamental truth?

In Focus: Looking at Deuteronomy, we see this: God tells the people that He will provide prophets to speak on His behalf (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18:18) from among the people. These prophets will make plain the words of the Lord God, and He will provide signs to attest the words.

The thrust here is that the signs will be accurate predictions of future events. The words of the prophets are to be tested against the accuracy of their predictions. Any prophet who misses a prediction is to be counted a false prophet.

Oh, and in case one of them lucks up and hits one right? Deuteronomy 18:20 makes clear that the prophets must speak only in the name of the One True God. If he is advising switching gods, then he’s a false prophet.

In Practice: What does this look like for us?

First, I am not persuaded by arguments that there are modern-day prophets like the prophets of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 1 reads like God spoke finally through His Son. With this assumption, we’re not looking at prophets as much as religious teachers and leaders. Which brings us back to the question: what does this look like for us?

The first component is this: there will be some people who will speak presumptuously in the name of the Lord. We must be aware of the risk that these will be present and will not immediately stick out to us as false prophets. Some of them will be quite persuasive.

The second component is the content of the message. Does it hold true with what God has already said? Does it pretend a secret knowledge? Note that the test of fulfillment appears to be a longevity test: quick changes would have been unlikely. There is also a necessary clarity in the expression. The prophet who hedges and fluffs—or nuances too much—would never be testable. Those whose words cannot be tested should be ignored.

This includes those who try to subtly play both sides of an issue without actually expressing the truth. Scripture is quite absolute on many things. In those areas, we may be as certain as the text is. There is waffle room when the text is not clear, but more time should be spent on what we have clearly anyway.

(For example, Scripture is far more clear about love expressed through sacrifice in marriage than it is about who does dishes. Yet we have far more written, it seems today, about who should do the dishes. Why is that?)

Additionally, any messenger who proclaims truth contrary to the revelation of God should be discarded. Whether he does so out of incompetence or willful evil does not matter. He should be discarded as a messenger. If it’s incompetence, then allow a new opportunity when competence is gained. If willful evil, that’s another matter.

All in all, we must be cautious about who we let stand as a messenger from God. Scripture in Deuteronomy 18, as well as in the New Testament, is clear that messengers are to be tested in both word and deed. Are your favorite messengers known well enough to you to be tested?


That’s a challenge in the Internet era. You can find folks that sound great on the Web, but are they what they claim to be? How do you know?

In Nerdiness:  Check the first couple of paragraphs, about Levites and relocation. They were to be fed and supported by the people they served as teachers of God’s word. They were also to stay put in their appointed place.

Unless they wanted to move to the central sanctuary. But a Levite that made the change was not to be better fed than his fellow Levites at the central sanctuary. In other words, there were to be no kick-backs to pull a Levite from the towns into the central area.

If we pay ministers now partly based on the concept of the Levites, then what does this say about how compensation is handled? Or about how compensation of denominational workers is handled?

Justice and Governance: Deuteronomy 17

In Summary: Justice and governance. These are the themes of Deuteronomy 17. The opening verse addresses the need for proper sacrifices but the rest of the chapter delves into the administration of justice. First, the Israelites are commanded to make a thorough investigation, but then penalties are required. The opening section deals with capital offenses.

Next, we see the idea of establishing a judicial system for those cases that are too hard to handle. Then there are rules established for the king, if the people ever have one. I still support the idea given for the king here. He was to make his own, by his own hand, copy of the Law of God. This likely would have been the book of Deuteronomy alone, but could have been the entire Pentateuch. My guess is just Deuteronomy, but further we do not see in Kings or Chronicles any evidence that the kings did this. In fact, under Joash we see the Law found as it had been missing! They apparently rarely did this. I think we’d be better off in America if everyone elected to public office had to at least copy the Constitution and Declaration of Independence…and if the President had to do the Tax Code, I bet it would get simpler!

Overall, we see that there were provisions for dealing with clear transgressions and for muddled situations. If it was clear and there were adequate, trustworthy witnesses, then justice was to be done swiftly and by the community. Think about how important the commandment of not bearing “false witness” becomes here: a false witness could cost someone their life! More complicated issues were to be taken up with trained judges, but clear cases could be handled by those who lived, day-to-day, with one another.

In Focus: Let’s put Deuteronomy 17:12 in focus. There are three necessary parts in this one verse.

First, there was the priest that served the Lord God and the judge that worked with him. Those who worked to establish and maintain justice in Israel were servants of God and His ways. It’s a subtle distinction between that and serving the people, but an important one. Justice is, at its core, a fixed issue: right is always right. Judges and legal systems are established to determine how to apply the law for right to happen. This is why the Hebrew system involved both judge and priest, to keep what is right in view.

Second, there was condemnation for anyone who refused to listen to the priest and the judge. Hasty judgment or refusal to honor the judgment was forbidden. Even if a person, apparently, was the aggrieved party they could still suffer punishment for not listening to the priest and the judge. Listening was a vital component.

Third, there was the clear connection between individual sinful behavior and evil in the nation. The justice system had to work to remove evil from the nation.

In Practice:

First things first: a justice system that is disinterested in the truth is one that will never do that which is right. There is a difference between the truth and the letter of the law, for there exist times when doing what is right is doing something that is not legal—and those are times when the law must be changed. It is for this reason that the American system allows judges to invalidate laws. Not for the convenience of people who cannot get a law passed, but to avoid punishing people for doing things that are right. Take Rosa Parks, for example here: the judge in her case should have cast aside the law both for her sake, because she had done nothing wrong and it shouldn’t have been illegal, and for the sake of the police who were responsible to arrest law breakers. They should never have been required to enforce a law that was wrong.

Justice systems should serve right and truth. When that does not occur, we see problems and eventual breakdown. Judges should never be bound to political expediency or even popular anger. Right is always right. This does not excuse wrongdoing by judges: there must be, because of the fallen nature of man, a way to correct for bad judgment.

Second things second: those who go to the judge must listen to what is said and recognize the decision. If it is wrong, there should be checks in the system to make it right. And while not mentioned here, throughout Scripture we see explicit condemnation of those who lock justice away from the poor. Our system does this: ever looked at what it would take to challenge something in court? I can’t afford it. Neither, most likely, can you.

Third: we must fight against evil personal behavior and its influence on society. We must also work to prevent evil societal action. But it starts with the individual. If we are slow to act on personal justice, if we allow delayed justice, then we are allowing evil to reign. That must stop.


In Nerdiness: The passages on the kingdom come into view here. Was Moses foreseeing a time when they would want a king? Or is this evidence that Deuteronomy was composed later? How you answer that is more a function of your presuppositions about Scripture than your Old Testament skills. I say that God inspired Moses looking forward, because my presupposition is that God is able to do so. Others take a different view. Passages like this test those assumptions.