Thinking on Scripture with Dr. Steven R. Cook

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In this section, Moses addresses the matter of charging interest on financial loans (Deut 23:19-20), the importance of keeping vows to God (Deut 23:21-23), and respecting a neighbor’s property (Deut 23:24-25).   

Charging Interest on Financial Loans

     Israel was a theocracy, one kingdom under God, who was their Judge, Lawgiver, and King (Isa 33:22). As a theocracy, Israelites were to have a sense of corporate responsibility for each other, as they were all in the covenant community, a special people, chosen by God to be His holy representatives to others (Lev 11:45; 20:26; Deut 7:6; 14:2). This had practical application in everyday matters such as loans to the poor. Moses said, “You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest” (Deut 23:19). Two groups are assumed in this verse, the wealthy and the poor. This shows that in a theocracy where God Himself rules, there would economic stratification. Socialistic and Communistic ideas of redistribution of wealth is a foreign concept to the Bible and tantamount to theft. Biblically, God directs wealthy Israelites to deal generously with their poor countrymen. It was fine to give them loans to help them when they were in a disadvantaged place, but they were not to charge interest (Ex 22:25-27; Lev 25:35-38). Eugene Merrill states, “Proper treatment of a brother in such matters would ensure the blessing of God in the land of promise (v. 20). God himself gives freely and graciously, so why should his people profit from the misfortune of one another (cf. Lev 25:35–38)?”[1] Not only was a loan to be made to a poor Israelite without interest, but if that Israelite could not repay the loan at the time of the sabbatical year, the loan was automatically forgiven (Deut 15:1-2).[2]

     However, for foreigners who were outside the covenant community, Israelites could charge interest on loans. Moses said, “You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest” (Deut 23:20a). Foreigners (Heb. נָכְרִי nokri) were those who lived among Israelites but were not part of the covenant community. Nothing is said about the resident alien (Heb. גֵּר ger) who resided among the Israelites, who enjoyed greater benefits than the foreigner because he/she had committed themselves to the Lord.  Foreigners might see Israel as a growing nation with strong economic possibilities and want to interact with them in business ventures. If a foreigner wanted to take out a loan from an Israelite, the latter was granted permission to charge interest on the former. Peter Craigie comments, “The Israelite was permitted, however, to lend on interest to a foreigner. Since the foreigner was not a member of the covenant community, it was not considered necessary to treat him in the same way as a fellow Israelite.”[3]Here was just economic discrimination where membership had its privileges. If Israel would follow these commands, like all the others, the benefit would be, “so that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess” (Deut 23:20b). God’s blessing would follow obedience (cf., Deut 14:29; 15:10; 24:19; 30:15-16). Daniel Block writes, “This policy seeks to inspire generosity by reminding Israelites that Yahweh’s generosity toward them is contingent on their generosity toward each other. The motive clause reflects Yahweh’s desire to bless them in the land in every effort to which they put their hands.”[4]

     There is no theocracy in the world today; however, just nations do well to learn from the economic principles of the Bible. God’s laws to Israel concerning money assume a free-market economy where individuals could pursue economic self-interest, but not in such a way so as to exploit a disadvantaged member of the covenant community. Today, a free-market economy is preferred over other economic systems, as it does more to elevate the poor in a community by allowing them to make good financial choices and benefit from those investments. However, those operating by selfish values can manipulate such a system, as they can any system, even one designed by God. A free-market system, by itself, does not secure a moral outcome or fair treatment of the poor. However, when God’s values for the poor undergird those with economic wisdom, it meets His approval and others are blessed by their open-handedness.

Keeping Vows to God

     Integrity matters to God, especially as it pertains to keeping a promise we make to Him or others. In ancient Israel, it was permissible to make a vow to God in which one promised to give something to Him, usually as an expression of gratitude for His goodness. However, when a vow was made, it obligated the promiser to fulfill his word. Moses said, “When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. 22 However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you” (Deut 23:21-22). This directive assumes individual property rights, and the right of volition to give freely what one has to another. There is no compulsion. However, if one vowed to give something to another, it meant the thing actually belonged to the other person, although it was not yet in their possession, it was theirs to claim. In this case, the vow was made to God, who holds the promiser accountable for what was promised. Failure to keep a vow was regarded as a crime by the Lord. However, if His people refrained from making a vow altogether, it was not a sin. The property was theirs to keep as their own.

     But if one made a vow to the Lord, to give Him something as a free expression of gratitude, then that one must not renege on his/her vow. God said, “You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised” (Deut 23:23). A word released cannot be taken back, and it’s better to pause and consider one’s words before speaking, especially is it relates to promises made to God. Victor Matthews states, “In the Decalogue is the commandment that no one should ‘misuse the name of the Lord’ (Ex 20:7). When a vow using God’s name is spoken, it brings God into contract with that person. Thus, any failure to carry out the stipulations of the vow breaks the contract and subjects that person to divine wrath.”[5] And Peter Craigie adds, “The principle underlying the injunction is rooted in the nature of the covenant. God spoke His promise in words to His people; His spoken word was reliable and would be fulfilled—it was not a spoken bribe to secure the allegiance of the people. To make a vow to God, then fail to fulfil it, would be contrary to the whole spirit of the covenant.”[6] Solomon speaks to the matter of vows, saying:

• "When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! 5 It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? (Eccl 5:4-6)"

Respecting Property Rights

     Israelites were to have a sense of community and regard for each other’s wellbeing. Concerning an Israelite traveler, the Lord said, “When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket. 25 When you enter your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor’s standing grain” (Deut 23:24-25). Here we observe both corporate and individual rights. Corporately, traveling Israelites could eat from their neighbor’s crops, whether grapes or grain, and this until they were full. However, they were not permitted to harvest their neighbor’s crops beyond what their bellies could hold. To take more than one’s stomach could hold was theft. This was a divine mandate that provided for a traveler to benefit from a wealthy landowner, but also protected the landowner from exploitation. All Israelites, whether wealthy or poor, were to remember that God owned the land (Lev 25:23), and He had the right to instruct His tenants about how they should manage their property, especially as it related to those within the community. Eugene Merrill states, “The allowance for the passerby was, no doubt, to create an atmosphere of general grace and hospitality and to provide practical aid for the traveler who, in those ancient days, might not be able to carry sufficient food supplies for a long journey and who would have no way of preserving certain foodstuffs from spoilage.”[7]

     Jesus and His disciples followed this law when traveling. Mark’s Gospel records, “And it happened that He was passing through the grain fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain” (Mark 2:23). Earl Radmacher states, “When Jesus and His disciples picked grain in open fields, they were following the common practice allowed by this regulation. However, the Pharisees challenged Jesus because they did it on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28).”[8] When Jesus was charged by the Pharisees that He and His disciples were breaking the law, what they were breaking was manmade rabbinical law, not biblical law. The biblical record is that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21), was “without sin” (Heb 4:15), and “in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5).

Present Application

     Words are the currency of the heart, for by them, we reveal our moral wealth or poverty. For some, a person’s word is gold. We trust what they say is true and that they will keep their promises, even at great cost to themselves. Faithfulness to keep a promise is a measure of one’s integrity. God wants us to have integrity, because He has integrity. To say God has integrity means He is honest in nature, that He always speaks truth, and that He is faithful to keep His Word. Because of who He is, God does not lie, and when He makes a promise, He always keeps it. The Bible reveals, “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Num 23:19; cf. 1 Sam 15:29). Elsewhere it is written that God “cannot lie” (Tit 1:2), and that it “is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18a). Scripture reveals that even “if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13). This reveals the character and immutability of God as well as the integrity of His Word, which is comforting to His people, especially since there is much falsehood and many promise-breakers in the world.

     As Christians, God calls us to be like Him, to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15) and to keep our promises to others. Warren Wiersbe writes, “The foundations of society today are eroding because of unkept promises, whether they be official contracts, marriage vows, political pledges, or words spoken on the witness stand. We expect the Lord to keep His promises, and He expects us to keep ours. Truth is the cement that holds society together.”[9] But truthful lips and a faithful life are the fruit of a heart that is filled with God and His Word; a heart committed to walk in godly integrity. 

   In Psalm 15, David writes about the one “who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart” (Psa 15:2).[10] One of the characteristics of the person who walks with integrity is that, “he swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Psa 15:4b). Other translations read, “he keeps his word whatever the cost” (Psa 15:4 CSB), and “he makes firm commitments and does not renege on his promise” (Psa 15:4 NET), and “keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind” (Psa 15:4 NIV). This behavior describes a mature believer who has a well-developed walk with the Lord. Concerning Psalm 15:4, Dr. Allen Ross comments:

• "Here the psalmist is dealing with faithfulness, keeping one’s word, even if it proves costly or inconvenient. The righteous must not change their mind to avoid an unexpected painful outcome; they must keep their word even if it means they suffer loss of some kind. In fact, to take an oath and not keep it would be to take the name of the LORD in vain. It would be better not to take the oath in the first place if possible."[11]

     The Christian who has a deep concern for integrity, truth, and faithfulness will keep his/her word, for honor is of more value than the pain of loss, whatever it may be. Solomon tells us, “Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool” (Prov 19:1), and, “Better is the poor who walks in his integrity than he who is crooked though he be rich” (Prov 28:6). This second proverb reveals a situation where a person chose godly integrity over crookedness, even though it resulted in financial poverty.

     Three closing points. First, having Christian integrity does not mean we become sinless. As Christians, we still possess our fallen natures, live in a fallen world, and face temptations and attacks from various sources that seek to undermine our walk with God. Even the godliest of saints sin (i.e., Moses, David, Peter, John, etc.).[12] The reality is there will be times when we fail to live by godly integrity, when we fail to keep our word, both to the Lord and others. But relapse does not have to mean collapse, for if there is humility, we can come before God’s “throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb 4:16). And if we confess our sins to Him, “He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Second, our failings, though many, do not destroy the Lord’s faithfulness to us, for though “we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13). God has blessed us with many promises (2 Pet 1:4), and He has perfect integrity, always keeps His Word and never fails. Third, God wants us to develop godly integrity so our character and life measure up to His righteous standards as revealed in Scripture. But developing godly integrity is the pursuit of a lifetime, as we make moment by moment choices to submit ourselves to God, to learn and live His Word, to be honest in who we are, to speak truth in love, and to keep our promises to others, even if the cost is great. As Christians who want to serve the Lord, may we rise to pursue such an honorable life, for God’s glory, and the benefit of others.

[1] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 315.

[2] Of course, a wealthy Israelite might have a concern that a needy brother would ask for help near the seventh year, just prior the time when loans were automatically forgiven, and the loan would become a gift with the lender losing all hope of repayment. If the wealthy Israelite failed to obey the Lord and withheld the loan to the poor person, then the poor “may cry to the LORD” in such a situation, which meant he would take his case before the Judge of all the earth and, it would “be a sin” in the one who was stingy. Here, it is revealed that the poor had legal rights in God’s theocratic kingdom, which is revealed in other parts of Scripture (Deut 27:19; Pro 29:7; Isa 10:1-2). The cure of a hostile attitude toward the poor was a generous heart and an open hand. This cure was to be self-administered. Failure to be kind and open-handed would bring about God’s cursing, but obedience would secure His blessings (Deut 7:11-13; 11:13-15, 26-28).

[3] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 303.

[4] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 548.

[5] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Dt 23:21–23.

[6] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 303.

[7] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 316.

[8] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999), 258.

[9] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Counted, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 133.

[10] The believer’s walk (הָלַךְ halak) is idiomatic of his/her behavior or lifestyle. It is the fruit of life that reveals the root of the heart. In this context, righteousness (צֶדֶק tsedeq) refers to a life in ethical conformity to God and His Word. And truth (אֱמֶת emeth) denotes what is dependable or reliable, and refers to God’s absolute and unchanging Word, that should fill the heart of the believer.

[11] Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms 1–89: Commentary, vol. 1, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2011–2013), 393.

[12] Moses sinned when he disobeyed God by striking the rock twice rather than speaking to it (Num 20:6-11). David sinned when he had an affair with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah (2 Sam 11:1-17), as well as when he took a census in Israel (1 Ch 21:1-8). Peter resisted Christ going to the cross (Matt 16:21-23), and later denied Him three times (Luke 22:54-61). John was rebuked twice for worshipping an angel (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9).

In this pericope, God gave His Word to Jeremiah, who dictated it to his friend, Baruch, who wrote it down on a scroll (Jer 36:1-4). Because Jeremiah was under some restraint, he instructed his friend, Baruch, to read it publicly in the temple (Jer 36:5-8), during a period of a fast (Jer 36:9-10). Baruch’s reading the scroll caught the attention of a city official, Micaiah, who reported it to the royal palace (Jer 36:11-13). Baruch was then asked to read the scroll to other city officials in the palace (Jer 36:14-19), who then took the scroll and had it read to King Jehoiakim, who rejected the message and burned the book (Jer 36:20-26). However, the scroll was rewritten (Jer 36:27-28), and God’s judgment was pronounced on Jehoiakim and his household because of the king’s negative volition (Jer 36:29-32). For complete study notes, see following link: https://thinkingonscripture.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Jeremiah-36.pdf 

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In this section, Moses addresses maintaining purity in military camps (Deut 23:9-14), providing refuge for runaway foreign slaves (Deut 23:15-16), and a prohibition against men and women serving as pagan cult prostitutes (Deut 23:17-18).   

Purity in Military Camps

     Moses opens this section, saying, “When you go out as an army against your enemies, you shall keep yourself from every evil thing” (Deut 23:9). Here, the military represented a specific group within the nation of Israel, and they were called to maintain purity in their military camp. The word evil translates the Hebrew adjective רָע ra, which commonly denotes “bad, evil, wicked, [or] no good.”[1] The word often refers to what is morally reprehensible to God; however, in the following verses (Deut 23:10-14), it refers to what is physically impure among God’s people. Being the source of absolute holiness, God determines and declares what is good or evil.

     Moses continued, saying, “If there is among you any man who is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he must go outside the camp; he may not reenter the camp. But it shall be when evening approaches, he shall bathe himself with water, and at sundown he may reenter the camp” (Deut 23:10-11). The nocturnal emission is not identified. It could refer to an accidental nighttime seminal discharge, which a man might experience when away from his wife for a period of time. Moses had previously mentioned such a discharge (cf., Lev 15:16-17), which rendered a man ceremonially unclean, not morally unclean. However, the context implies that the nighttime emission more likely refers to one who urinated in his bed. Peter Craigie states:

• "The first example relates to a man who is unclean because of what happens at night. On the analogy of Leviticus 15:16, these words are often interpreted as signifying the nocturnal, involuntary emission of semen; the Hebrew in this passage, however, is different and less specific than that of Leviticus 15:16, and it is possible that something else is intended. The references may simply be to urinating in the camp at night, either involuntarily or else because a man was too lazy (or tired) to get up and go outside his camp. This interpretation seems to provide a more natural parallel to the legislation contained in Deuteronomy 23:13-15, and it would thus refer to a more typical and common occurrence in any military camp. A man who had behaved in this manner was to remain outside the camp the following day; toward evening he would wash himself, again for hygienic and ritual reasons, and he would be permitted to reenter the camp after sunset."[2]

     This law was to go into effect after Israel had entered the land of Canaan; at which time, they would find themselves facing an enemy. Moses continued his instruction, saying, “You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, 13 and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement” (Deut 23:12-13). Some pagan cultures, such as the Egyptians, used animal feces as part of their medical practices. Fawver and Overstreet write:

• "Much of the information found in the Egyptian medical texts was medically hazardous. For example, donkey feces were used for the treatment of splinters, which probably increased the incidence of tetanus because of tetanus spores present in feces. Crocodile feces were used for birth control. In contrast Moses wrote that God instructed the Israelites to cover their excrement because it was “unclean” (Deut 23:12–13). At no time did Moses resort to adding the popular medical techniques of his day, though he was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22), which certainly included their medical wisdom."[3]

     Moses concludes, saying, “Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you” (Deut 23:14). Here is the primary rationale for maintaining purity in the camp. When going out to battle, the Israelites must constantly be aware that God is among them, walking in their midst, inspecting the camp for cleanliness. God is holy and He expects His people to be holy (c.f., Lev 19:1-2). In these verses, cleanliness was an act of holiness in God’s sight. Warren Wiersbe states:

• "This section applied to Israel’s soldiers when they were encamped away from home. The basic principle was that they treat the camp as they would their land at home, for the Lord was with them even on the battlefield, walking in their midst. The idol-worshiping nations believed that they left their gods behind when they went to another country, but Israel’s God was always with them, for He is the God of all the earth. If a soldier had become unclean at home, he would have to leave the community, wash, and return the next day; and that same rule applied in the camp. The men were also to have a place outside the camp for disposing of their excrement. This would not only keep them from being defiled, but it would also promote hygiene."[4]

Protecting Runaway Slaves

     Concerning runaway slaves from a foreign country, Moses wrote, “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him” (Deut 23:15-16). The passage considers slaves who ran away from their foreign master to seek refuge in Israel. Such a scenario might be tied to the previous section pertaining to going out to war. It’s possible a foreign slave might be near Israel because he/she was brought there by a commander or soldier. Being in proximity might have afforded the slave the opportunity to run away and seek refuge within the Israelite community. If this happened, God’s people were to allow such a one to live in their midst for protection and freedom, to reside in whatever town they wanted, and not to take advantage of them or mistreat them. A modified form of slavery was permitted in ancient Israel, in which a person who owed a debt could obligate himself to his debtor to pay off a debt. This contract arrangement was voluntary for both parties and had a divinely set term limit of six years, after which, the slave must be set free (Deut 15:12). Furthermore, the slave was to be set free with a liberal severance package adequate to jumpstart his own economic wellbeing (Deut 15:13-15). Such actions were predicated on the fact that Israel, as a nation, had been enslaved in Egypt, and they were to regard willful Israelite slaves with compassion and fairness. However, if an Israelite served his six-year contract and came to love his master because he was treated very well, he could voluntarily enter into a lifetime agreement of service (Deut 15:16-18).

Prohibition Against Cultic Prostitution

     Moses continued, saying, “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute” (Deut 23:17). Here was a prohibition against young Israelite women or men from being a cult prostitute in a pagan temple. Canaanite parents were known to give their sons and daughters to serve as prostitutes in their worship of pagan idols. In such situations, the children were exploited by the parents for sinful purposes.[5] Israel was not to be like the pagan cultures around them. They were to be holy. For a young woman or man to engage in such activity would imply some residual Canaanite influence in the land. Jack Deere writes, “The prohibition here was probably intended to prevent a foreign religion being practiced by Israelites, and to keep the worship of the Lord from being contaminated by temple prostitution.”[6] Unfortunately, this command to prohibit Israelites from serving as temple prostitutes was not followed by later generations (see 1 Ki 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Ki 23:7). Eugene Merrill writes:

• "So-called cultic prostitution was widespread among the fertility cults of the ancient Near Eastern world that saw in its employment a means of achieving productivity of plant, animal, and even human life. Whole guilds of male and female temple personnel participated in grossly sexual rituals designed to induce the various gods and goddesses to release their procreative powers on the earth. Nowhere was this more commonly practiced than among the peoples of Syria and Canaan, hence the special need to warn Israel against it."[7]

     Moses further states, “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deut 23:18). The male prostitute is called a dog because his brutish behavior is like that of a dog, which indiscriminately mounts another canine for sexual gratification. Whether a female or male prostitute, their wages were regarded as dirty money that was not acceptable to the Lord. Giving to the Lord’ work is a valid act, but what is given must be derived from honest work done in an honest way.

Present Application

     Through our study of Deuteronomy, we learn that God is concerned about just laws and moral behavior among His people. God’s laws through Moses were just laws, because they derived from a righteous God. As a theocracy, God was their Judge, Lawgiver, and King (Isa 33:22). Though the church is not under the Mosaic Law as the rule for life, we still have directives to follow, and these are always for our good and the good of others. As Christians, we are not called to form a nation like Israel, but are to go out to many nations (Matt 28:19-20), and this to preach the gospel and God’s Word to all who will listen. As Christians living in a fallen world, we realize that a just and moral nation is the product of a just and moral people. As Christians, we desire morality and justice in our society. However, such morality never occurs through social or political force. We have failed as Christians as soon as we seek to politicize our message and control others through legislative means. We realize true and lasting transformation must occur from the inside out, as people are regenerated through faith in Christ and advance to spiritual maturity through learning and living God’s Word, not by a forced morality imposed through the halls of congress. Where Christianity prevails in a society, social evils will decline, and freedom will be maintained by a moral and just people. John Adams knew this very well and said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

     As Christians, we are called to share the gospel that people might receive new life and be liberated from Satan’s slave-market. If a person rejects Jesus as Savior, then that person chooses to continue as a slave to Satan and his world-system. It’s unfortunate, but it’s their choice, and it must be respected. God is a perfect Gentleman and He does not bully anyone to accept His offer of salvation, nor to live according to His directives. If people turn away from Him and suppress His truth in unrighteousness, then He will let them go their own way. Concerning those who “suppress God’s truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18), three times it is written that He “gave them over” to “the lusts of their hearts” (Rom 1:24), and “to degrading passions” (Rom 1:26), and “to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper” (Rom 1:28). Once God permits a person to operate by his/her sinful passions, they are given a measure of freedom to live as they want. These are described as “being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful” (Rom 1:29-31).  

     Such people live according to laws of their own making, with no greater source of morality than that which can be derived from their own fallen hearts. However, because they have rejected God, they have no basis for moral absolutes by which to declare anything ethically right or wrong. There is only subjective opinion, which fluctuates from person to person and group to group. If God and His Word are rejected, we’re left with no moral absolutes, and then what is, is right, and the conversation is over. Morality then becomes a matter of what the majority wants, or what an elite, or tyrant, can impose on others. Francis Schaeffer wrote: 

• "If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions."[8]

     As biblically minded Christians, we realize that without God, there is no final basis for ethics or laws other than finite and flawed people. If there is no God, then right and wrong are reduced to opinion, and cries for justice become nothing more than psychology reports from dissatisfied people. It’s interesting that people cry out for personal and social justice because they’re naturally wired that way. But for the atheist, such inclinations are either a learned behavior based on arbitrary social norms, or a biological quirk that developed from accidental evolutionary processes.

     As believers, we know God exists, that He is there, and He is not silent. God reveals Himself in the human heart (Rom 1:19), through nature (Psa 19:1-2; Rom 1:20), through His Son (Heb 1:1-2), and through His written Word (Psa 119:160; John 17:17; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Furthermore, God has placed within each person a conscience, and this operates according to a morality God has infused within each person. Paul wrote, “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (Rom 2:14-15). Human conscience, when operating properly, serves as God’s moral compass placed within each person. People intuitively know that God exists (Rom 1:18-20), and that certain laws are right (Rom 2:14-15). We don’t have to persuade anyone. People intuitively know God exists, that He is just, and that actions such as murder, abortion, lying, stealing, and adultery are wrong.

     For those who have positive volition, they will hear the Christian message and turn to Christ as Savior, believing Jesus “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4). Once saved, they can then begin the process of renewing their minds according to God’s Word (Rom 12:1-2), advance to spiritual maturity (Eph 4:11-13; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18), live by faith (Heb 10:38; 11:6), operate in the power of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18; Gal 5:16), walk in a manner consistent with their new identity in Christ (Eph 4:1), and manifest the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their daily lives (Gal 5:22-23). Such Christians will become the moral backbone of any society, which will be richer because of their walk with the Lord.

[1] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[2] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 299.

[3] Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, “Moses and Preventive Medicine,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 275.

[4] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Equipped, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1999), 158–159.

[5] The sinful exploitation of children continues today. I knew a girl in Las Vegas who, when she was 11, her mother used to prostitute her out to men in order to maintain the mother’s cocaine habit. This went on for several years. That a parent would do such a thing to a young child reveals the depravity of the human heart. The past few decades have seen a global rise in kidnapping and child exploitation as part of the sex-trade. Sin and evil still exist.

[6] Jack S. Deere, “Deuteronomy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 304.

[7] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 313.

[8] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, 50th L’Abri Anniversary Edition. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 145.

     In Deuteronomy 23:1-8, Moses addresses immigration laws in ancient Israel, limiting who could worship in the assembly of the Lord. Moses opens, saying, “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:1). The phrase, “one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off” is rendered more literally as “a man whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off” (CSB). The practice of emasculation was done on servants who guarded a man’s harem, and was practiced by men who were radical devotees of pagan worship. Daniel Block states, “this prohibition seems have been influenced by pagan religious rites of self-castration, perhaps as an ascetic act of self-torment or in pious imitation of the gods.”[1] The phrase, the assembly of the LORD (קָהָל יהוה qahal Yahweh), occurs six times in this section (vss. 1-8), showing God had concern for the sanctity of the congregation that met Him for instruction or worship. Previously, Moses had emphasized the positives of gathering for worship (Deut 12:7, 12; 16:11, 14), but here emphasized the negatives that excluded one from fellowship. Being excluded from worship among the Israelites did not mean one was excluded from the covenant community as a whole. Earl Kalland states, “Most likely this law did not exclude one from residence in areas where Israel was to live but rather from the benefits of full-fledged citizenship and most particularly (and maybe only) from participation in religious rites in the homes and at the tabernacle and later at the temple.”[2] Such exclusions based on physical defects were not limited to non-Israelites, as Levites with physical defects could not serve as priests at the tabernacle/temple (Lev 21:16-23). Even animals with physical defects were not eligible for sacrifice (Lev 1:10; 4:32).

     Another person excluded from gathering at the assembly of the LORD was one born of illegitimate birth. Moses said, “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:2). The phrase, one of illegitimate birth, translates the Hebrew noun מַמְזֵר mamzer, which refers to a “bastard, [or] child of incest.”[3] This could refer either to one who was the offspring of a pagan prostitute (cf., Deut 23:17-18), or perhaps from an incestuous relationship, which was practiced among the Canaanites (Lev 18-20). Such an exclusion might have sought to deter Israelites from pursuing immoral relationships.  

     Moses continued, saying, “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, 4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you” (Deut 23:3-4). It should be remembered that the Ammonites and Moabites were the offspring of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his two daughters (Gen 19:30-38). Whatever their parentage, God prohibited the Ammonites and Moabites from participating in the worship of the Lord because they sought to curse His people (Num 22:1-6, 22-24, 31-33). Thomas Constable writes:

• "The main reason for the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites was the extreme hostility that these nations demonstrated toward Israel when Israel was approaching the Promised Land. Evidently Ammon participated with Moab in resisting Israel’s passage, in seeking to curse the Israelites with Balaam’s assistance, and or in corrupting the Israelites through sacred prostitution (Num 22–25)."[4]

     As Israel traveled toward Canaan, they were met with hostility and opposition as Balak, the king of Moab (Num 22:4), hired Balaam to curse the Lord’s people (Num 22:5-6). The word curse translates the Hebrew verb קָלַל qalal, which means to treat as small, little, or insignificant. This same word was used by God when He set forth the promises pertaining to the Abrahamic covenant, saying He would bless or curse others depending on how they treated Abraham and his descendants. God told Abraham, the progenitor of Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses [קָלַל qalal] you I will curse [אָרָר arar]” (Gen 12:3). Allen Ross sates, “Those who blessed Abram would receive blessing from God; that is, those who supported and endorsed him in his faith would actually find enrichment. Conversely, if anyone treated Abram lightly, he must be cursed.”[5] God’s promise to bless or curse was based on an unconditional covenant that started with Abraham and extended to his descendants forever (Gen 17:7; Num 24:9). Concerning the curse in Genesis 12:3, Arnold Fruchtenbaum states:

• "The first word for curse is kalal, which means “to treat lightly,” “to hold in contempt,” or “to curse.” To merely treat Abram and the Jews lightly is to incur the curse of God. The second word for curse used in this phrase (him that curses you will I curse) is aor, from the Hebrew root arah, which means “to impose a barrier,” “to ban.” This is a much stronger word for curse than the first one in the phrase…Therefore, even a light curse against Abram or against the Jews will bring a heavier curse from God."[6]

     This cursing from God is seen in His opposition the Ammonites and Moabites when they sought to curse His people. Moses tells us, “Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you” (Deut 23:5). God’s people were under His divine protection, and no satanically inspired curse would penetrate the wall of fire around them. Solomon wrote, “Like a flitting sparrow or a fluttering swallow, an undeserved curse goes nowhere” (Prov 26:2 CSB). In fact, not only did God prohibit Balaam from cursing the Israelites, He directed him to bless them instead (Num. 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9). Balaam’s actions angered Balak, who said, “I called you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have persisted in blessing them these three times!” (Num 24:10). God’s protection from opposing military and spiritual forces was because He loved His people and desired their best. For Israel, knowing God’s blessing was tied to their obedience to His directives (Deut 11:26-28). When they stepped outside God’s will, they opened themselves up to all forms of evil as well as divine discipline.

     Because the Ammonites and Moabites sought Israel’s harm at the time of their journey from Kadesh Barnea into the land of Canaan, God said, “You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days” (Deut 23:6). Here was the boomerang effect, in which those who sought to curse God’s people wound up bringing a curse upon themselves. This verse should be understood as referring to those who continued in hatred and hostility toward God’s people and were excluded from treaty relationships. Daniel Block writes:

• "Previously Moses had noted Yahweh’s love as the motivating force behind his election and rescue of Israel from Egypt (Deut 4:37; 7:8) and his lavish blessing (Deut 7:12), but here it underlies Yahweh’s protection from hostile military and spiritual forces. Because the Moabites and Ammonites had opposed Yahweh and his agenda regarding the Israelites, the Israelites are never to seek their peace or their welfare. Since “a treaty of friendship” functions as a general expression for well-being in covenantal contexts, this may be a ban on treaties with Ammonites and Moabites."[7]

     But God’s dealing with Ammonites and Moabites did not exclude displays of grace. Remember, God had previously given the Ammonites and Moabites land south of Israel, and His people were to leave them alone (Deut 2:9, 19). Though the Ammonites and Moabites were collectively under divine judgment, and this because of their negative volition and hostility toward Him, He knew there would be descendants who would trust in Him and become part of the blessed community. This was the case with Ruth the Moabitess, who loved God and His people (Ruth 1:16-17), and was even included in the line of Christ (Ruth 4:13; Matt 1:5). Eugene Merrill writes:

• "Disbarment from the assembly was not synonymous with exclusion from the covenant community itself as the one example of Ruth the Moabite makes clear. Having determined to return with her Israelite mother-in-law to Bethlehem, she vowed: “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). This was more than mere wishful thinking or personal resolve, for Ruth went on to marry a leading citizen of Bethlehem (4:13), and she eventually became a great-grandmother of King David (4:21). There can be no doubt that Ruth was welcomed among the people of the Lord as one of their own though presumably never with access to the assembly."[8]

     In contrast to the hostility of Ammonites and Moabites, Moses said, “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land” (Deut 23:7). The Edomites were the descendants of Esau (Gen 36:1, 8), who was born to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 25:21-25), and therefore in the Abrahamic line and biologically related to Israel as a “brother.” Furthermore, Israel was not to detest the Egyptians. Though Israel had lived in Egyptian captivity for four centuries, their basic needs of safety, shelter, and food were met. Though Pharaoh and his administration were hostile to Israel, it does not appear this was the case with the Egyptian people themselves. As a result, Israelites were not to treat the Egyptians in a negative way. God Himself opened the door for the Egyptians, saying, “The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut 23:8). This meant that after a time of exclusion, Egyptians could be allowed to worship in Israel alongside Israelites, assuming they had trusted in Yahweh and were willing to abide by His directives in the covenant community.

Present Application

     All Christians are called to walk with the Lord and to submit ourselves to Him for service. This means, in part, devoting ourselves to the study of Scripture (2 Tim 2:15; 1 Pet 2:2), offering our bodies for service to the Lord (Rom 12:1-2), living holy lives (1 Pet 1:15-16), regularly confessing our sins to God (1 John 1:6-9), sharing the gospel with others (Mark 16:15; Rom 15:15-16), assembling for worship (Heb 10:25), offering praise to God (Heb 13:15), doing good works (Gal 6:10; Heb 10:24), sharing our resources with others (Heb 13:16; cf. Phil 4:18), living selflessly for the benefit of others (Phil 2:17; cf. Phil 1:21-26; 2:3-4), praying constantly (1 Th 5:17), giving thanks (1 Th 5:18), and walking in love (Eph 5:1-2; cf. 1 Pet 1:22). These are just a few of the Christian duties that are to be obeyed by all believers.

     However, apart from the general duties of all Christians, there are specific qualifications for some who would serve in a special way. For example, serving as a church elder or deacon means meeting certain qualifications; specifically, church elders are appointed by God (Acts 20:28; cf. Eph 4:11), consist of men only (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:6; cf. 1 Tim 2:12-14), and must be doctrinally, morally, and spiritually mature (1 Tim 3:1-7).[9] Failure to meet these qualifications disqualifies one to serve as a church elder or deacon within the local church.

     Furthermore, there are some Christians who should be excluded from Christian fellowship, and these include believers who are continually teaching false doctrines or pursuing sin (this is not the occasional sin, but ongoing sin that harms the spiritual walk of others). The reason we should avoid such persons is partly because “bad associations corrupt good morals” (1 Cor 15:33). When writing to Christians in Corinth, Paul said, “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor 5:11). Disassociation was for the purpose of maintaining personal holiness with the Lord. We always hope the sinning Christian will come to his/her senses and come back into fellowship; however, we must maintain distance until they do. In another place Paul wrote, “I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Rom 16:17). And, “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us” (2 Th 3:6). Such actions are never easy, for we love fellow believers and desire friendship with them. However, our walk with God must always take priority, for He is our greatest Friend, and allegiance to Him secures for us all that is strong and good and meaningful in life. And if/when the erring believer turns back to the Lord and resumes their walk-in-the-Word, then all will be as it should, and fellowship within the Christian community can be restored.

[1] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 534–535.

[2] Earl S. Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 140.

[3] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 561.

[4] Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), Dt 23:1.

[5] Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 263.

[6] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Ariel’s Bible Commentary: The Book of Genesis, 1st ed. (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2008), 242.

[7] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 536.

[8] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 309.

[9] The function pastors is to solve doctrinal problems in the church through biblical discussion and research (Acts 15:4-11, cf. Acts 16:4), work with “the whole church” on ministry matters (Acts 15:22), shepherd the church through general oversight (Acts 20:17; 28), guard against false teachers and their false doctrines (Acts 20:28-32), guide believers to spiritual maturity (Eph 4:11-14), be servant-leaders (1 Th 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17), work hard at “preaching and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17; cf. Gal 6:6; Eph 4:11-14; 1 Th 5:12), receive financial support from those who benefit from their ministry (Gal 6:6; 1 Tim 5:17-18), and offer support and prayer for those who suffer (Jam 5:14).

This free audio book is the companion to Making a Biblical Marriage. Steven Cook recorded the introduction, but Cherie Backs recorded the main portion of the book. 

     In our current section on case laws (Deut 19:1—26:19), we are considering how the nation of ancient Israel was to practice righteous living after they entered the land of Canaan (Deut 16:20), how righteousness was measured by conformity to God’s laws (Deut 6:24-25), and obedience would result in the Lord’s blessings (Deut 11:26-28). In the previous section, Moses set forth a law concerning an unsolved murder, and addressed the responsibilities God placed on the leaders of a nearby city to pronounce their innocence before the Lord (Deut 21:1-9). In the current section, Moses addresses: 1) the just treatment of wives taken in war (Deut 21:10-14), 2) the just treatment of a firstborn son from an unloved wife (Deut 21:15-17), 3) the just treatment of a rebellious son (Deut 21:18-21), and 4) the just treatment of the body of an executed criminal (Deut 21:22-23).

     Moses opens this section, saying, “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive…” (Deut 21:10). The Hebrew conjunction כִּי ki, translated when, assumes the reality of future warfare for God’s people. As the Lord’s people engaged the enemy, they were to know that it was their God who was giving them victory. In this passage, Israel’s enemies refer to adversaries outside the land of Canaan (Deut 20:15), as there was the possibility of some taken as captives. This was contrary to the command to kill everyone in Canaan and to leave no one alive (Deut 7:1-3; 20:16-18).

     Moses anticipated a situation in which an Israelite warrior would “see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife” (Deut 21:11). Here, the word desire translates the Hebrew verb חָשַׁק chashaq, which means “to be very attached to, to love somebody.”[1] This speaks of the natural desire that a man has for a woman in which he sees her as physically attractive and perhaps as a companion for marriage. When used of people, this love is predicated on outward appearance and behavior, which is always subject to change. Interestingly, the same Hebrew word is used of Yahweh toward Israel (Deut 10:15). However, when used of God, it refers to a love that is based on His volition and integrity and not the beauty or worth of the object, as Moses had previously made clear (Deut 7:7).

     If the soldier decided to pursue the woman as his wife and bring her into his home, Moses instructed, “then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife” (Deut 21:12-13). Shaving the head, trimming nails, and removing familiar clothing may picture the putting away of her old life before the war. Hard changes to physical appearance—including hair fashion and clothing—can help with the psychological transition from one culture to another, assuming the person is willing to adapt. These actions also allow the woman to express her grief during the time of transition and is permitted to mourn her parents a full month. Here, non-Israelite women were allowed to honor their mother and father as Israel’s law demanded of His own people (Deut 5:16). Daniel Block writes, “When her hair and nails grow and she puts on new clothes, she emerges as a new person, with a new identity and new status; she hereby declares nonverbally what Ruth declared verbally to Naomi (Ruth 1:16). The actions also remind her new husband that he is not to treat her as an alien or a slave.”[2] This transition would have helped the woman recover psychologically from the natural shocks of war, loss of family, and adaptation to a new culture. Eugene Merrill adds, “This presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively.”[3]

     However, if the marriage was not working out, then Moses gave legal provision for the war bride to be released from the marriage. Moses said, “It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her” (Deut 21:14). Being not pleased with her is vague and could refer either to the man’s personal desires changing, or perhaps to the possibility that the woman refused to adopt Yahweh as her God, therefore making the marriage impossible to maintain. Whatever the reason of displeasure, the man was to set her free from the relationship and not treat her as a slave, which would add to her humiliation. This verse also shows that Israelites could marry foreign women (although Canaanite women were excluded; Deut 7:1-4). Ruth is the ideal example of a foreign woman adopting Yahweh as her God and walking in the ways of the Lord (Ruth 1:16; 4:13). Unlike Israel, pagan cultures did not afford their female captors such privileges. Moses then transitions to address the Israelite man who has two wives—perhaps as a follow-up to the previous discussion—and sets forth a law concerning the rights of the firstborn. Moses said:

• "If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, 16 then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. 17 But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn." (Deut 21:15-17)

     Whatever the husband’s personal attitude toward his wives, whether he loved one more than the other, he was restricted from denying his firstborn son the legal right to a double-portion of the inheritance. Being the firstborn son and receiving the double-portion obligated him—with the appropriate resources—to care for his parents in their old age and to serve as the head of the family. What follows could address the possibility that a son—whether firstborn or not—proved to be rebellious and disobedient to his parents, failing to follow in the path of righteousness. Moses said:

• "If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. 20 They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear." (Deut 21:18-21)

     Whereas the previous directive protected a firstborn son from a capricious father, this command protected the father and mother—and society at large—from a rebellious son who was a troublemaker. Here, the son is regarded as being between that of a child and a fully developed adult. Eugene Merrill comments:

• "These children certainly were not minors as their behavior (v. 20) and punishment (v. 21) made clear, but they also could not have been fully mature and independent adults who were out from direct parental supervision and heads of their own households. Rather, they were adolescents, dependents who were under the care of their fathers and mothers but fully responsible for their actions and resulting consequences."[4]

     The phrase a glutton and a drunkard are merely a few of the many characteristics of the son who was largely stubborn and rebellious. Peter Craigie states, “The latter words do not specify the crime, but indicate, by way of example, the kind of life that has resulted from disobedience to parental authority.”[5]

     Biblically, parents were to train their children in authority orientation so they would be able to function properly in society. The child who would not submit to his parent’s authority was seen as a threat to the welfare of the community, as he would also not submit to governmental authority and eventually become part of the criminal element that would lead to societal harm. In every home, parental influence diminishes over time, as the child’s personality becomes settled. At a certain point—and it’s different for each person—the child must bear the consequences of his own actions before God and others. If the child reaches a place of maximum recalcitrance, the parents could bring their son to the elders of the community, who would execute him by stoning him to death, and in this way, would remove the evil person from their midst. Executing the son was the responsibility of the leaders within the city and not the parents, and this only after a legal case had been made. That both parents were to do this shows equal responsibility in the home for raising and training the child. Daniel Block writes:

• "The description suggests the parents have done all they could to raise their son properly, but he is incorrigible and will not listen to either father or mother. The prescription for this son seems simple. The parents are to seize him, take him to the assembly of the elders in the town where they reside, present their case orally, and leave him with the men of the town, who will stone him to death (vv. 19–21a)."[6]

     This consequence is not merely because the child is disobedient in the home. Rather, he has grown to adulthood and poses a corrupting threat to the wellbeing of the community at large, and therefore cannot be tolerated, lest he influence other sons to be rebellious against the Lord. Most children possess good and bad qualities during their developmental years and are usually not completely sold to evil at a young age. The scenario in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 seems to picture an extreme situation, such that a son was disobedient all the time, perhaps over years, and had developed such sinful qualities that he was beyond reform and must be put to death, lest he become a cause for evil in the community, which community was called by God to be holy. Though this law was given, we have no biblical record of a parent implementing it.

     Having discussed the execution of a son, Moses then addressed the larger issue of what to do with the body of a person who had been put to death. Moses said, “If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deut 21:22-23). This verse addressed the reality that some crimes warranted the death penalty. That the body of the dead person was hung on a tree for others to see perhaps served as a phycological deterrent to would-be-criminals. Such a criminal was viewed by the community as being “accursed by God” and worthy of his crime. However, even though on display, the body of the executed person was not to be left overnight, but buried the same day. Failure to follow this policy would result in the elders of the city being guilty of defiling the land itself. Joshua followed this command when he executed the king of Ai (Josh 8:29), as well the executed pagan kings of southern Canaan (Josh 10:26-27). The apostle Paul referenced Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13 when referring to the death of Jesus. Jesus was cursed in that He was made to bear our sin on the cross (1 Pet 2:24; cf., John 19:31), not that the cross itself made Him cursed.

     Interestingly, God Himself struggled to carry out His judgment upon the nation of Israel, whom He regarded as His son (Ex 4:22-23; Hos 11:1). The historical record of Israel reflected a longstanding rebellion against God as they repeatedly rejected His authority and committed horrible sins over centuries. God, on His part, repeatedly displayed love, grace, patience, and goodness toward His people, constantly providing clear directives into righteous living (Jer 25:4-11). The more He sought to lead them into righteousness, the more they rebelled against Him and pursued wickedness (Hos 11:2-4). Eventually, He judged them for their sin by handing them over to others for discipline (Hos 11:5-7). Still, the heart of God was torn, as it wounded Him deeply to consider His judgment, and in the end, though they were severally disciplined, they were not destroyed (Hos 11:8-9). Good and righteous parents will understand the heart of God when dealing with their own rebellious children.

Below are some thoughts about women, polygamy, parenting and children:

     Unlike ancient cultures that regarded women as lesser beings who could be mistreated or abused by men, the book of Deuteronomy offers no such endorsement. Rather, God established legal rights for widows (Deut 10:17-18), for daughters and female servants to have an equal place of worship at the tabernacle/temple (Deut 12:12), for female slaves—like their male counterparts—to be set free after six years of service (Deut 15:12), and for a newlywed wife to enjoy the company of her husband before he was eligible for military service (Deut 20:7). Likewise, the wife shared equal responsibility for raising the children to know and walk with God (Prov 6:20-23), and the children were to honor their father and mother. Even war brides had legal rights that protected them (Deut 21:11-14). And the excellent wife who honors God, lives wisely, and serves others, is praised for her godly virtues (Prov 31:10-31).

     Concerning marriage, monogamy was God’s ideal (Gen 2:24-25; Matt 19:4-6). However, polygamy was permitted (though not promoted), except for the king, who held the highest office in the land (Deut 17:17). In polygamous relationships, wives were to receive equal treatment in the home (Ex 21:10-11). Biblically, we know Abraham took Hagar to be his wife, even though he was married to Sarah (Gen 16:3). Jacob had four wives: Leah (Gen 29:23-25), Rachel (Gen 29:28), Zilpah (Leah’s maid; Gen 30:9) and Bilhah (Rachel’s maid; Gen 30:1-4). King David had eight wives that we know by name: Michal (1 Sam 18:27), Abigail (1 Sam 25:39-42), Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43), Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24), Maacah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah (2 Sam 3:2-5), and other wives and concubines that are unnamed (2 Sam 5:13). As far as I can tell, David married only women within the Israelite community and he cared for his wives. In one biblical account, two of David’s wives, Abigail and Ahinoam, had been taken captive (1 Sam 30:5), and David prayed to God concerning the matter. God provided David victory so that he could reclaim his two wives as well as many possessions (1 Sam 30:6-18). King Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away” (1 Ki 11:3). God permitted Solomon to sin in this area of his life, and it ultimately ruined his walk with the Lord. Solomon eventually worshipped idols (1 Ki. 11:4-10), and this brought God’s anger. God said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant” (1 Ki 11:11). God punished Solomon for his sin, but He punished him as a son and not an unbeliever. In spite of David and Solomon’s sin, God used them both to accomplish great things. Eventually, Jesus, the promised Messiah, was born in their family line (Matt 1:6-7, 17).

     God created Adam and Eve with the ability and mandate to procreate and fill the earth (Gen 1:26-28). Once a mother and father have children, God expects both parents to raise their children to know the Lord and to walk with Him (Deut 6:7-8). Ideally, children are “a gift of the LORD” (Psa 127:3a), and, “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth” (Psa 127:4). However, godly parents and a godly home are no guarantee children will accept what is provided, as they may turn away from the Lord. Parents are responsible for their godly output, but not the outcome of results. Parents hope for good children, and to this end they teach God’s Word, model godliness, and pray fervently. However, the reality is that any parent, even those who pursue righteousness, may have children who fail to follow the Lord and commit themselves to a sinful lifestyle. Such children have disowned their parents and the Lord. This was the case with Eli, whose sons “were worthless men; they did not know the LORD” (1 Sam 2:12). And Eli’s sons refused their father’s wise and loving correction (1 Sam 2:22-25a), and “would not listen to the voice of their father” (1 Sam 2:25b). Because Eli’s sons had continually sinned against the Lord and others, they’d placed themselves under God’s judgment, and the result was, “the LORD desired to put them to death” (1 Sam 2:25); which He did (1 Sam 2:34; 3:13; 4:10-11). Similarly, Samuel had two sons who “did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice” (1 Sam 8:3). Such rebellious children are a grief to their parents (Prov 10:1; 15:20; 17:25), not honoring their father and mother (Deut 5:16), who lovingly seek to correct them into the path of righteousness. Children who dishonor their parents also dishonor God, who delegated authority and responsibility to them for the wise upbringing of their children. It’s interesting that a child as young as eight could be morally accountable before God, as was Jehoiachin, who “was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and he did evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Ch 36:9).

     Godly parents will instruct their children in the ways of the Lord, and wise children will listen and apply what they’ve learned, subsequently living a beautiful righteous life (Prov 6:20-23). In the New Testament, Paul recognized that Timothy’s life was directly influenced by the instruction provided to him in childhood by his grandmother and mother. Paul said of Timothy, “I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well...and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). In another place, Paul linked a child’s obedience to parents as the ground for personal and future blessings, saying, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth” (Eph 6:1-3). The child who made this investment in parental obedience would reap the benefit of a blessed life by God. And in Colossians, Paul wrote, “Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord” (Col 3:20). All children have their sinful proclivities and failings. Hopefully, as they grow into adulthood, they will learn to fear the Lord and walk with Him, producing a beautiful righteous life that honors God and their parents. Until then, parents must stay the course and continue to expose their children to biblical teaching, correcting them when needed, and to model righteousness, patience, grace, all with an attitude of love, being persistent in prayer on behalf of their children (see Job 1:4-5).

[1] Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 362.

[2] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 496.

[3] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 291.

[4] Ibid., 293.

[5] Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 284.

[6] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy, 499.