Deuteronomy 19-34
Introduction
This lesson concludes our study of the book of Deuteronomy, beginning with various aspects of the law and ending with the death of Moses and replacement by Joshua. Please refer to these resources as well: this commentary, the NETS Bible, and this LXX Interlinear.
A word about prejudice
I will follow the example of scripture by not overlooking the sins of Constable on the topic of women. I’ve sung his praises for the most part so far, but the time has come to get in his face about a terrible sin. In his notes he makes a statement about the need for credible witnesses so justice would be served at all times, then adds, without comment, a quote from Josephus that claims Moses said that women and servants were never to be considered credible witnesses.
I would have expected Constable to at least cite Judge Deborah, who was the top official in Israel and a prophet who spoke for God as any male prophet did. We could also cite Esther, whose testimony and wisdom were proven very credible and accepted as such by a society that had even less regard for women. Or what of the ideal woman of Proverbs 31, who is known for her wisdom? Or Abigail, wife of a man whose name meant “fool”, whose wisdom and bravery saved her clan and eventually got her married to King David?
Both Josephus and Constable should be ashamed of themselves for their prejudice and sin of omission. Sadly, this sort of treachery against half the human race is promoted and enshrined to this day, by most of the Christian world. If you search on articles about women in the Bible, or the judges and prophets of Israel, you will be hard-pressed to find any honest and complete studies. The seminaries churn out Christian leaders with this doctrine of devils, and the bookstores are filled with their ungodly elevation of the flesh.
Especially egregious is the common claim that women like Deborah or Huldah were only chosen because no suitable men were available and God was either scraping the bottom of the barrel or shaming the men. But scripture never even hints at such a thing. It is pure speculation, putting words in God’s mouth that he never uttered. All who do this will be put to shame at the Judgment Seat of Christ. If God promised curses to Israel if they became like the nations around them, what will he do to Christians who bow to the cultural prejudices of the world?
Even so, there’s a nice chart in his notes about the functions of priests as compared to prophets, but it should serve as another indictment for the omission of Huldah as a teacher of scripture since she fits the Priest category. Even if “merely” a prophet, she delivered authoritative messages from God, which has been almost completely forbidden for Christian women.
Deu. 19-20
Now to scripture. Verse 19 states that a false accuser was to be punished with the verdict they had hoped to bring against the accused. This would be an excellent deterrent to a common problem today. Then in 20:18 God says clearly why not one living thing was to remain in the Canaanite cities: because Israel would learn the detestable worship practices of the survivors. But notice also in these war passages that not every enemy outside of Canaan was to be wiped out completely, because they were more distant and less of a threat of corruption.
Deu. 21
Verse 10 begins a section on wives, and again God shows that he is not “bowing to culture” by treating female captives of war as garbage. A captured woman is to be granted a month to mourn the family she left behind, either by death or separation, and the man who captured her is not to touch her until that time is completed. Even if the man chooses not to keep her, he can’t sell her. Both of these things kept society’s granting of male privilege from going too far. At least Constable’s comments on this passage are tolerable.
Since it’s quite unlikely that Israel would have learned any lessons from the “favored wife” problems of the patriarchs, God has to regulate polygamy, another cultural norm he never sanctioned. Then the topic is a rebellious son, but Constable has to “presume” that it would also apply to a rebellious daughter, again reading into scripture. And again, this is talking about a habitual problem, not an occasional lapse by the son, or a moment of rage on the part of the parents.
In the final section of ch. 21, it says that the body of a person who has been executed for a crime is to be hung on a tree but buried before sundown. This is where we read about a curse on anyone hung on a tree, and Constable points out that this hanging was the result, not the cause, of that curse. This is something to keep in mind when reading the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ execution.
Deu. 22
In ch. 22 we see a very brief, but overly emphasized, prohibition against men and women wearing each other’s clothes. At the time, such a practice was mostly for occult or magical reasons, not the modern concept of cross-dressing. Of course, blurring of sexes is condemned in both Testaments, but it should also be known that both men and women wore long robes in those days and in that culture, such that “dresses” as we know them aren’t what Moses had in mind.
This seems to be part of the overarching theme of separation, which is the meaing of holiness. Critics love to pick out verses like this and wave them in the faces of Christians who wear cotton-polyester blends, or plant a garden with more than one type of seed. They don’t seem to understand context or covenants, much less the principle behind the separation, which is ultimately that Israel was to be distinct from all other nations.
Now back to women issues, and again the slanted playing field as defined by culture. At least God looks out for the woman falsely accused of being promiscuous. But in spite of the general law of making false accusers suffer the fate of the accused, in the case of a husband who has falsely accused his wife he is not to be put to death as she would have been if guilty. Instead, he has to pay a heavy fine to her father, and he can never divorce her. But remember in that society it would have been a favorable outcome for her, since had the man been put to death, she would likely be impoverished.
The remainder of ch. 22 deals with various circumstances of rape, and verse 30 is the likely reference for the scathing rebuke in 1 Cor. 5 about a man sleeping with his stepmother. Though not identical situations, the principle seems the same, and in the case of the Corinthians, even the Gentiles were shocked that anyone would do this.
Before we go on, there’s an interesting statement in Constable’s notes: that passages concerning women and marriage require discernment as to whether the rules are cultural, temporary, bendable, or the opposite of all that. Only now, after having earlier disparaged all women of all cultures for all time as being unfit to serve as witnesses, does he consider the importance of context. The driving force of such an inconsistent approach to scripture is fear, since women as equals would mean men are not automatically entitled to privileges and power.
This is part of the larger issue of the “plain reading” method, where words are lifted off the page without regard to context, common sense, or consideration of the scriptures as a whole. Some live in the fear that if we need to “rightly divide the Word of Truth” instead of skimming it off the surface, then we’re opening the door to disrespect of scripture and all kinds of heresies. But in fact it’s the “plain reading” method (I call it the “lazy reading” method) that disrespects scripture, treating it as if it had been written in a cultural and linguistic vacuum. To wrongly divide the scripture is to divide the Body of Christ.
We should also mention the issue of polygamy, since many point to these ancient laws of Israel and note that God regulated it instead of forbidding it. But that would be severely regressive, since God via Israel was trying to lift up the human race, not keep it in bondage. Many, but not all, have come to realize the inherent injustice and inhumanity of slavery, yet refuse to let go of patriarchy, which is only different in degree rather than kind. There is simply no excuse anymore, especially among professing Christians, to claim entitlement on the basis of the flesh.
Deu. 23
Moving on to rules about personal hygiene, especially regarding when the army is camped somewhere, we see again that substances leaving the body are seen as unclean because they signify some kind of abnormality. But Constable decided to throw in a little Calvinism here and claim that it signifies “total depravity”. Who can say, as he does, that “there is nothing good in man”, when scripture speaks of “righteous” people like Abraham or Mary? Never let an aberrant ideology drive interpretation of scripture.
Verse 18 is the rule against giving money to the temple that would be considered “ill-gotten gains”, which was the likely command the Pharisees had in mind when they hypocritically wouldn’t put Judas’ betrayal fee into the treasury. Many try to rationalize vices such as gambling or profits from shady business deals by giving “generously” to charity. Some of the worst criminals in history were philanthropists, because public charity tends to get people to overlook hidden crimes. The end does not justify the means.
Deu. 24
On that happy note, we’re back to women’s issues again. Few teachings have ruined as many lives as that Jesus forbade any and all divorce except for unfaithfulness, as skimmed from the surface of Mat. 5:32 and 19:9. To his credit, Constable brings up the context of those passages, which was that two rabbis were at odds over the precise meaning of the law here. One claimed that Moses permitted “no-fault divorce”, which would allow a man to dump his wife for no reason, likely because he wanted someone younger and prettier. The other claimed that Moses’ intent was that some kind of sexual sin would be required to justify divorce.
Yet many still miss the big picture here about compassion. A couple already divorced in relationship should not be forced to stay together, but on the other extreme, women are not to be treated as dispensable toys. The Pharisees wanted Jesus to take sides in their legalistic debate, and Jesus simply stated the law as written, meaning he took the conservative, compassionate side. He was rebuking their heartlessness, not enforcing it.
Wolves in sheep’s clothing have been teaching that God demands women stay with even the most abusive husband, even to death, because this is somehow “suffering for Jesus”. Such twisted, cold-blooded misogyny! Jesus never taught that believers should expect persecution from other believers. The blood of murdered, maimed, or verbally abused wives is on the hands of those who have twisted Jesus’ words. God is no respecter of persons. At least Constable brings up Paul’s teachings on the matter for Christians, and that what God permits is not necessarily what God intended. If only he would apply that truth across the board.
Verse 16 says that children and parents are not to be executed for each other’s crimes. What does that do to the Calvinistic teaching that God holds us all guilty for the sins of Adam and Eve? How could God’s law be more compassionate and just than God? Guilt cannot be inherited, though consequences can spread to the innocent. We’ll see this principle again in Ezekiel 18.
Deu. 25-29
In this section we see the teaching about keeping inheritances intact by making sure there are male heirs. This is the law the Sadducees used to try and trap Jesus, by the hypothetical case of a woman who eventually went through seven brothers, so whose wife would she be in heaven? They didn’t believe in life after death, so they tried to use this law to prove their belief. But what the modern western mind objects to is the idea that anyone would be forced by law to marry someone they don’t love. Here again, culture differences need to be understood, or we misapply them as moral lessons.
From this point, the text goes into various civil remedies and the tithing system, and the repeated agreement of the people of Israel with the law. By ch. 28 we see the lists of blessings and curses, and we would remind “Hebrew Roots” believers that you can’t have one without the other. Who would want to trade salvation by faith under the light burden of the priesthood of Jesus, for the 613 laws of Moses with its curses for breaking them? History has shown that these curses were very literal and physical. Is this trading of the easy for the impossible not the same as Esau despising his birthright?
Deu. 30-34
Now in ch. 30 God expresses the final end to which even the most defeated and scattered Israelites could look in hope. The day has not yet been reached when all of these promises have been fulfilled, but we can rest assured they will be, literally and physically on this earth. Verse 19 is a final appeal to choose wisely, an impossible task for the Calvinist interpretation.
In 31:14 it’s time for Moses to hand over his job and authority to Joshua, and God tells them that Israel will quickly sink back into idolatry, in spite of everything. Then in verse 24 he has Moses write down the law on a scroll and put it beside the Ark of the Covenant as a written witness against the people when they rebel. On top of that, Moses calls heaven and earth as witnesses.
In 34:4 God has Moses ascend to the top of Mt. Nebo so he can see the Promised Land, and then he dies. He is buried in the land of Moab but no one knows precisely where, which implies that God buried him himself. But if we consider the laws of Moses his “last will and testament”, his death made it active and the people were legally bound at that point.
Conclusion
This brings us to the end of Deuteronomy, and the end of the Pentateuch or Torah. It explains the origin of the world, the weakness of humans regarding sin and separation from our Creator, and the Creator’s merciful plan to restore it all without violating his character, which is not mere raw sovereignty but also compassion and patience regarding our free will to do stupid things. To only know the end of the story is to be ignorant of the story, so this beginning of the Bible should be familiar to Christians at least on the basic level covered in these lessons.
From this point on, the scriptures describe the steps between the foundation and the pinnacle, and the journey is as important as the destination. So we can’t leave the theater at the end of the overture, nor enter the theater at the final act. The Bible is a unit, and a book many have died to preserve. Let’s at least treat those devout martyrs with some respect by holding the Bible in high esteem, not merely with words but with actions.