A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Deuteronomy 17 (Part 1)

Deuteronomy 15 talks about the Year of Jubilee and releasing debts, which we covered here and here and here. Deuteronomy 16 talks about the Passover, which we talked about here and here and here and here and here, and the Feast of Tabernacles which were covered here and here. So we will proceed with Deuteronomy 17. 

Deuteronomy 17:2-7—2 “If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing His covenant, 3 who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, 4 and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones. 6 Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.”

Evil was not to be tolerated among the people. And if anyone harbored one who was doing a great evil, they were to bring the evildoer to the priests so that the evil may be dealt with and the evildoer executed. Because if it was found out that the person had done evil in worshipping either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, that one would be guilty of bringing reproach upon the name of God, since having this person counted among the people of God would be telling the world that God was okay with having idol worshippers among His people. And if someone knew of this, and did nothing about it, they would be just as guilty as the idol worshipper because you were allowing this to happen. You would have been found to give tacit approval to their idol worship, so you would be counted guilty as well. 

We see this today. Some progressives who think that Muslims are okay in God’s eyes, or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Because they don’t want to seem “intolerant”. They want to be seen as welcoming. Or they tolerate some sin that God calls abomination. So they will call their “church” an “affirming” church and will say “all are welcome here.” What they are affirming is sin, just as God says it was in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. But they, too, are following a god of their own making. And they will be just as guilty as the one who set up an altar to Ba'al or a pole for Ashtoreth. Then there are the “churches” who will not condemn abortion, the killing of a child in the womb. They will try to say that God would not find fault with a woman who kills that child, even though that child may have been conceived in an act of illicit fornication. But of course, they will not speak out against the act of fornication outside the bounds of marriage. That would not be “loving” and would be seen (by their congregation and by their allies) as “unkind”.  But it is far more unloving and far less kind to allow this person to believe that what they did is okay in God’s eyes, and that it is not a grave sin that they must seek forgiveness for. And as far as affirming that homosexuality is okay with God, it is no different than saying that adultery or murder are okay in God’s eyes. They are all sin, and must be forgiven. But these “churches” don’t do that. They allow the person to go frolicking along in their sin, never thinking for a second that what they did was wrong. Then the person dies, stands before God’s Great White Throne, and has to give an account for why they did what they did. “Well, my pastor said it was okay.” And not only will that person burn for their sins, but the “pastor” will as well, never guiding the person to the truth, never warning the person of the wrath to come. And they will actually meet a more severe judgment than the sinner. James 3:1 tells us that those who preach and teach will be in for a much sorer judgment for leading people astray then the people they lead. 

4 “And it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones.” If one were to hear of such a thing, they were not to just take it at face value that this thing happened. They were to inquire diligently about it. This was something that had to be certain, and the person who heard about it should be diligent in investigating it, since this offense carried with it the penalty of death. Today, before the death penalty can be levied against a person accused and convicted of a crime, certain criteria must be met for this sentence to be handed down. And it is not something that should be handled lightly. This was the case here as well. One could not use hearsay as a means to incriminate the accused, there must be concrete evidence against the person. I could accuse someone of a crime, but unless there was evidence the person committed that crime, the person would not be prosecuted. But how many times do we hear of someone being accused of a crime, the newspaper headlines blaring out the accusations, and we jump all over that and say “That person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!” When that person may not be guilty. But we latch on to that headline and proclaim them guilty. Before any exculpatory evidence has been shown forth. 

“And doesn't the Constitution of the United States say, ‘a person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?’” What would you say if I told you this phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution? You can look, but it isn't in there. It is, however, a principle derived from the language of the 5^th and 6^th Amendments to the Constitution.

 

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. 

This principle of the “presumption of innocence” is derived from the “Due Process” clause in the 5^th Amendment. Unlike in Britain—as it was at the time of the Revolution—where someone was considered guilty until proven innocent, the framers of the Constitution did not want that repeated in this new country, and put the burden of proof on the Court to determine one’s guilt. This was because in Britain, the wealthy and their words held more weight than the words of the poor, and if one was not of the proper social standing, their testimony did not bear the proper weight in the eyes of the Crown. And if Lord Smith said that a common man had committed a crime, many times that was all that was required to convict the man. The Framers did not want that. They wanted a court system that was fair, and counted the words of all men, great and small, to carry equal weight. The principle of the “Presumption of Innocence” was laid out by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Coffin v. United States in 1895. The key part of this ruling was written by Associate Justice Edward Douglass White and reads thus:

 

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is ‘reasonable doubt’. It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist. 

Okay, that’s a lot of legal speak, so let’s break that down. The Constitution, while not explicitly stating there is a “presumption of evidence”, nevertheless, by the language found there, does necessarily imply it. This is a point in favor of the accused. “Reasonable Doubt” is a product of this principle. Since the person is considered innocent, this casts a bit of reasonable doubt on the case. Hence the phrase, “Thus one is a cause, the other an effect.” The presumption of innocence produces the reasonable doubt. Though they are not equal with one another, one cannot be considered without the other. We also have this (much simpler) explanation:

 

Associate Justice Joseph Story, offering the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. Gooding (1827), wrote that, “the general rule of our jurisprudence is that the party accused needs not establish his innocence, but it is for the government itself to prove his guilt before it is entitled to a verdict or conviction.”

(found at https://constitutingamerica.org/90day-fp-principle-of-innocent-of-any-crime-until-proven-guilty-guest-essayist-ben-peterson/) 

The same was true in our passage in Deuteronomy. The accused could not be considered guilty until all the evidence was weighed and found to be absolutely convincing, the person could not be found guilty. 

“Then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones.” If the evidence was overwhelming, and it was found that the person had indeed done what they were accused of, the sentence was death. There was no appeal; they could not drag out the case with legal loopholes. They were to be put to death on the spot. How many times do we see it today? There are countless numbers of men and women sitting on Death Row for years and years, and are never executed. Because their lawyers find new ways to drag their case out, never reaching the end and the sentence is never carried out. This was not the case here. If one was found guilty, they were taken outside the city and stoned. Period, paragraph (See Leviticus 24:14; Numbers 15:36). (The Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos say they are to be brought to the “gate of your judgment house” and “door of your court”, respectively. Although Rashi [Jarchi] believed it to be the gates of the city). We don’t bat an eye about a man being executed, but we get a bit squeamish when we hear of a woman on Death Row. (Since 1976, eighteen women have been executed in the United States, while 1594 men have been executed.) But God has no such hang-ups. There are men and women in Hell, and in His eyes, women can be just as guilty of death as men. And we see in the history of Israel and Judah that women were visited with death for their opposition to God (Jezebel and Athaliah, for example). For the Christian era, there is also the example of Sapphira in the Book of Acts. The gender of the offender mattered not to God, His honor and glory were not to be impugned. 

6 “Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.” Just as today, one could not receive the death penalty without what we call “corroborating evidence”. Anyone can make an accusation. I could, right now, say that the guy who lives across the street killed his wife. But what evidence do I have? “Well, I said it, isn't that good enough?” No, it’s not. The State has to be able to prove he did it in order to gain a conviction. Has anyone found the wife’s dead body? Have they found any weapon that might have been used in the crime? Did anyone else see it happen? If any of these (and other) questions cannot be answered in the positive, then the State will be unable to gain that conviction, or even arrest him for the crime. My accusation, by itself, is not substantial enough proof to send this man to prison. 

Many times in this country evidence has been excluded by courts that would clear a person of a crime they were charged with, and wrongly convicted of. This is called “exculpatory evidence”. Prosecutors don’t like to lose cases because it (wrongly or rightly) reflects badly on them. They can be seen—by themselves and by others—as having failed at their duty. So they will often move to exclude evidence that can be seen as favoring the defendant, and often innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. This was not so here. There was no wrangling between lawyers about what evidence to include and what evidence to throw out. All evidence was presented, the testimony of two or three witnesses, both good and bad. There was no pleading for a lesser sentence, there was no doing hours of community service in lieu of the sentence pronounced, the convicted could not throw themselves on the mercy of the priests. If they were guilty, the sentence was carried out. If they were found innocent, they were released. 

“The testimony of two or three witnesses.” Just because Yitzhak claims that Yakub was worshipping Ba'al was not enough to condemn him to death. They had to have corroborating evidence—evidence that when, taken together, could pinpoint the man (or woman) as being guilty of the offense. The presumption of innocence we enjoy here is rooted in this principle. Just as there must be sufficient evidence of guilt for a conviction today, so there had to be sufficient evidence in our text. And they were not tried by a jury of their peers, the evidence was laid out before the priests, who weighed the evidence before God, and were ultimately responsible for determining whether the person was guilty or not. And these witnesses must tell the truth. Exodus 20:16—“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” 

This was the hang-up Annas and Caiaphas faced when they put Jesus on trial. Matthew 26:59-60a (also Mark 14:58-59)—59 Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, 60 but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. They brought in witnesses—false witnesses, in opposition to Exodus 20:16—who testified falsely, and could not get their stories to match up. What they were doing went against what we see here in Deuteronomy and trying to do so within the bounds of this command. But they were also going against the clear command in Exodus to not bear false witness. Which was what the Pharisees were already guilty of. Finally they found two rapscallions that told them what Jesus had said about destroying the temple. Matthew 26:60b-61—60 But at last two false witnesses came forward 61 and said, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.'" Anyone with half a functioning brain would understand that Jesus did not mean to say He could rebuild Herod’s temple in three days (see John 2:19-21). But they were so bent on seeing Him executed that they accepted what these men said as evidence that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. Paul Krutzmann rightly says:

 

The enumeration of the several sections of the Sanhedrin brings out all the more strongly the injustice of the proceedings. Men whose business it was to know the Law and to lead in all virtues were here the very ones to subvert right and to make a farce of justice. Also: They deliberately sought false witness. Knowing that the usual method of obtaining testimony against a criminal would have yielded no results, they exerted themselves most diligently to find such testimony as would enable them to judge Him worthy of death, but without success. The more men they examined with their obvious purpose in view, the more thoroughly just and holy Jesus stood before them. Even the last two witnesses that garbled the prophecy of Christ concerning the temple of His body, Joh_2:19, could not make their witness agree. The whole trial threatened to be a glorious justification of Jesus. But here the high priest Caiaphas, for fear of losing his case, forgot the dignity of his position as judge and turned accuser, if not plaintiff. He demanded that Christ defend Himself against the testimony which had been adduced. But Christ remained perfectly quiet, knowing that under the circumstances this silence was the best course. Since they wanted not justice, but His death at all costs, they would have pounced upon every word He might have uttered, and mutilated it beyond recognition. "Here see how unjustly the high priests deal with Christ the Lord. For they are at the same time accusers and judges. Therefore the Lord must be wrong in His case, no matter what He may say or do. In temporal affairs this would be a great dishonesty. But for these holy people nothing is sin, they have power in all things; they can do what they please, and challenge all who would accuse them of wrong or interpret something in an evil way." 

This perjury by these two men, allowed without penalty by the very ones who were supposed to be fair and equitable, paved the way for the death of the only perfect Man to ever live—God in the flesh, Jesus Christ our Lord. 

“The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.” Those who witnessed the evil were to be the first to stone the guilty party. This was a signal to all that the verdict was fair and the punishment just. If those who had witnessed the evil were so inclined to carry out the death sentence, then all could agree that the party was, in fact, guilty. But if they wouldn’t do so, because they knew that the convicted person was not guilty, it might sway the people to favor the accused and set him at liberty. “This, then, was an excellent remedy for the repression of light accusations, not to admit the testimony of any, whose hand was not prepared to execute the sentence” (John Calvin). And it is why Jesus laid the carrying out of the sentence at the feet of the men who were accusing the woman of adultery in John 9:1-11. (note—Some take this event to not be part of John’s original Gospel, but a later addition and do not comment on it [the Early Church Fathers and Calvin, for example]. While the placing of this event where it is does indeed disrupt the flow of the surrounding verses, and does not align with John’s style of writing, some do consider this to be an actual event [it is found in over 900 manuscripts] and is judged as worthy of inclusion [though perhaps not in John 8, but rather in one of the Synoptic Gospels. See Thomas Constable’s commentary].) This injunction against adultery is found in Leviticus 20:10—“‘The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.’” So, because of this command, the woman, and the man she was with were to be put to death. “Well, where was the man?” That is the question. This was all a ruse to try and trap Jesus in His words and actions, to try and show Him as a hypocrite. Jesus, however, turned the tables on Him, when they asked Him “What do we do with her?” and He said, “Okay, let the first innocent ones who caught her stone her first.” John 8:7—"He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." He, being High Priest, had the right to order this sentence carried out or abrogated. Since none of those accusing her fit the bill of what Jesus commanded, they all went away, from the youngest to the oldest, showing that none of them were innocent in the eyes of God’s Law.

Part 2 next week

 

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen. 

A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Deuteronomy 14 (Part 2)

Deuteronomy 14:22-29—22 “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. 24 But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, 25 then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 26 And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. 27 You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates, for he has no part nor inheritance with you. 28 At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. 29 And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.” 

So many who teach that we are still bound to tithe miss this part. They teach that we are to give our 10% to the preacher, while neglecting what Moses says here. The first 10% tithe was given to the Levites because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, but now we see another tithe, one that was to be eaten by the one offering it. How often do you hear any tithe teachers mention this? You don’t. Because they don’t mention this, they just go running to Malachi and wag their finger at you and proclaim that you are robbing God. (Ask them where the Levites are that they are giving their 10% to!) So let’s look at this tithe. 22 “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.” After they took the first 10% off the top to give to the Levites, they were then to take the next 10% to take to the place where God put His name, and eat it as a sacrificial meal. This was to be done yearly, of all the grain that could be used for food, as well as wine and oil and from the herds and flocks. This was to be done as a way for the people to remember that it is God who gives us all things to enjoy. “That you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.” They were to eat it and drink it where God chose to put His name. They couldn’t just say “Hey, let’s take it over to Yitzhak’s house and have a barbecue.” They were to go where God told them to go, that they may eat it in the sight of God, that they may give Him the reverence due Him. Keep in mind: the land they were going to did not get an abundance of rain throughout the year, and it did not have a river that would overflow its banks. This land depended on the rains that came by God’s good pleasure, and it was this rain that the grain needed to grow and the herds and flocks needed to drink. And they were to give this year’s crop as a tithe during this year; they were not to hold on to it until the next year came around, and they were not to use this year’s crops for the preceding year. 

And once a year they were to take the first 10%, give it to the Levites, then take another 10% and use it in one meal “In the place where He chooses to make His name abide.” Just imagine this. If we were to put this in modern terms, let’s say you earn $60,000 per year. You would take 10% ($6,000) and give that to the Levites. That would leave you with $54,000. Then you take 10% of that ($5.400) and use it for one meal. Every year, year by year. To many this would seem absurd, but that is because they don’t have a proper reverence of God. He is the One who allows them to earn their money, and without Him they would be beggars in the street. But in order for these people to remember that it is God who gives them the ability to eat (see Deuteronomy 8:18), He commands them to eat 10% of their grain, oil and flocks and herds in one meal at the place He commands them to eat it. “That you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.” Not that they should eat with trembling hands and dread in their heart, but that they may remember that all this was given to them by God. “For the fear of the Lord is not merely a feeling of dependence upon Him, but also includes the notion of divine blessedness, which is the predominant idea here, as the sacrificial meals were to furnish the occasion and object of the rejoicing before the Lord. The true meaning therefore is, that Israel might rejoice with holy reverence in the fellowship of its God” (Keil and Delitzsch). That it is only by His generous mercy that they would have anything to eat at all. That by looking upon the Tabernacle, they may be reminded that it was God who led them through the wilderness and was faithful to them even when they were doubting and complaining. That when they grumbled because “all we have is this manna to eat”, He sent them more quail than the entire camp could eat in a month, and many who ate of that quail died because of their ungrateful attitudes. 

24 “But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, 25 then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 26 And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” Suppose someone lived in the land of Beersheba in the land of Simeon at the south end of Israel, and the Tabernacle was in the land of Naphtali in northern Israel, a good ways away by foot. And it would be too difficult for them to take their tithe of their grain and wine and oil and their flocks and herds to the Tabernacle, what would they do? What could they do? They could sell their grain, oil and flocks or herds for money, take that money to the land of Naphtali, and buy whatever they wanted. And they could eat and drink to their heart’s content, giving praise to God for it. But it still had to be bought and consumed at the place where God caused His name to abide. “You shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” And it was not to be done as an excuse for gluttony or drunkenness. That was for the pagan to be caught up in. The person of God is to always retain their faculties, always keep their mind and their wits sharp, for we never know when an occasion may arise where we will have an opportunity to share the Gospel of Christ. And at any rate, we do not want to appear to be as the heathen, being caught up in gluttony and drunkenness. 1st Peter 4:3—For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. But while we should be careful not to indulge our flesh too much, we must also remember that everything we have and everything we enjoy comes from God. Ecclesiastes 2:24—Nothing is better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that his soul should enjoy good in his labor. This also, I saw, was from the hand of God. We should enjoy the fruits of what we work for, since the ability to do what we do comes from God. 

27 “You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates, for he has no part nor inheritance with you. 28 At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates. 29 And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.” This is the hard one. It is one thing to give 10% to the Levite to support them, since they had no land (only cities). You count off your 10%, you take it to them, they take 10% of that and give it to the priests, and that’s that. You take another 10% and you enjoy a meal. But here, the people were commanded to set aside yet another 10%, and let it be eaten by “The stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within your gates.” Today we would call it charity. The people were to take 10% of their grain, set it aside, and watch the poor in the land Levites eat it. We have lost this idea in the world we live in today. To take care of the orphans and widows. To give what we have and give to those who don’t have. Isaiah 10:1-2—1 “Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees, who write misfortune, which they have prescribed. 2 To rob the needy of justice, and to take what is right from the poor of My people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.” This principle had been forgotten in the days before God sent the people into exile. There was great greed in the land; those who had wealth were hoarding it for themselves and were neglecting the needs of those in need. They did not want to help them; rather, everything they did was to keep more of their wealth and to keep their foot on the necks of the orphans and widows. But this principle of helping the needy is laid out again in the New Testament. James 1:27—Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. This one verse sums up what the Christian life is to be like. To take care of the less well-off and to avoid the things the world says are to be enjoyed. 

This is why we now have deacons in the church—to help those who have no resources, who have no way of making a living, who have no choice but to depend on the church to provide for their basic needs. Acts 6:1—Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. The Gentile widows were being neglected by the Jews. Remember this was the very earliest days of the church, and there was still schism between some Jews and Gentiles. There were still Jews who looked down upon the Gentile believers, and so neglected them. So the disciples gathered together and chose seven men to see to it that the Gentile widows were also cared for. Acts 6:3—“Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” Paul more clearly outlines the qualifications for a deacon in 1st Timothy 3:8-13—8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. A man must be these things in order to fill the role of deacon, as he is to distribute to the needy, and not keep the distribution to the poor for themselves. If a man was given to too much wine, he would bring reproach upon the name of our Lord. If he was greedy, he could keep some of the distribution for himself. If their wives were not also so, they could also share in these failings and cause the deacon to fall short in his duties. 

“But what if the widow was well off and did not need help from the church? Suppose they had a wealthy relative?” This is why Paul tells Timothy later, If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows (1st Timothy 5:16). If the woman had a near kinsman who could care for her, it was their responsibility to do so. Why? Because otherwise, the widow would rely on gifts from the church, burdening this gathering when it did not need to be burdened.  If the church was tasked with taking care of a widow who could be taken care of by her family, this would take away from more necessary works that the church needed to take care of. Which is why Paul said a few verses earlier, But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1st Timothy 5:8). This person would be taking away from what the church could be giving to widows who are truly in need in order to keep more of what they have. To do so would show that this person may not truly be in the faith, if he would burden Jesus’ called ones when he himself could take care of this need. Vine’s Expository Dictionary defines widows thus: “1st Timothy 5:9 refers to elderly "widows"…, recognized, for relief or maintenance by the church, as those who had fulfilled the conditions mentioned; where relief could be ministered by those who had relatives that were "widows" (a likely circumstance in large families), the church was not to be responsible; there is an intimation of the tendency to shelve individual responsibility at the expense of church funds.” 

So the people of Israel were commanded to give a tithe, every three years, to the widows and orphans. This seems to have been forgotten when the early church started. The Lord’s Table is to be a solemn remembrance of how He gave His life for us (see 1st Corinthians 11:24-25). But they had turned it into a riotous feast, complete with gluttony and drunkenness and ungratefulness and greed. They were to keep Christ before them in their minds as they were partaking of the bread and wine, but they had forgotten him in their indulgence. It was this ungratefulness and greed that the Apostle Paul was warning the Corinthians about in 1st Corinthians 11:20-21—20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. They were bringing their own food from home and not sharing with the rest of the body. So some were overfilled and others were empty. This is not the way it is supposed to be. There is not to be division between rich and poor, between those who have and those who have not. The Table our Lord instituted was for all who came, and equally. But these Corinthians who despised the poor in their actions saw this as an occasion to have a lavish feast, and to deny to the poor the help they needed. The Cambridge Bible has this to say:

 

…this is not to eat the Lord’s supper] Better, perhaps, it is not to eat a supper of the Lord’s Institution…It is not merely that the conduct of the Corinthian Christians was inconsistent with taking’ part in the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood, but that it was in no sense a supper of Christ’s institution of which they partook. “The question arose,” says Dean Stanley, “whether the majesty, the tenderness, the awe of the feast should be lost in a senseless orgy.” 

The Lord’s Table is not a place to indulge our appetites; it is a place to remember what Jesus did for us on Calvary. God placed His name on Jesus, and we should always keep that in the front of our minds as we partake of the bread and wine. It should not be a place of fun and frolic; it should not be a place of debauchery (which is never to be named among Christians). It is a place to remember who we were, to remember what Jesus has done, and to remember where we are headed. 

We should always take care to provide for those in need. Does that mean we always give our 10% to the church to do that? No. We are not bound neck and heel to giving 10% to the church. Paul told us this. While we should give to the church for its upkeep and to provide for the pastor, Paul says we are to give where we feel led. 2nd Corinthians 9:7—So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. Perhaps you feel burdened to take care of a family that has little income. And providing for them will take up our funds to where we cannot give to the church, this is not a bad thing. If it is God who is directing you to give in such a way, you are doing the Lord’s work and I dare anyone to say this is a bad thing. Besides, nowhere—NOWHERE—in the New Testament are we ever commanded to tithe. Tithing was of the Old Covenant, which has been done away with. If anyone teaches that we are still bound by the tithe, they must explain why all the commands connected to the tithe still apply. “But Jesus commends the Pharisees for tithing of mint and cumin and anise!” True. Was the Old Covenant still in effect at that time? Yes, it was. So that is not applicable. 1st Corinthians 16:1-2—1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. Why didn’t Paul say “I commanded them to bring the tithe”? The churches of Galatia had been influenced by the Judaizers, those who wanted to keep the people under the Law. And here, Paul was saying that giving was individual, that it was not bound up in a strict 10%, and that each should give as they felt led. 

Do you feel led to give 10% to the church? Then do so, there is no shame in doing so. But churches that teach that you MUST give 10% (and there are many) do a disservice to giving, making people feel ashamed if they cannot give the 10% every week. “But what about Hebrews 7:2, 4, where it says Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek, and that before the Law was introduced? Doesn’t that mean the tithe is eternal?” Is this verse telling us we must tithe? Or is it giving us an example of a man who gave a proper gift to a great man? And note, he gave a tenth of the spoils (Hebrews 7:4). So if one is to use this verse properly, they would have to give 10% of the spoils of war, which is what is depicted here. Adam Clarke says, “It was an ancient custom, among all the nations of the earth, to consecrate a part or tenth of the spoils taken in war to the objects of their worship. Many examples of this kind occur. This however was not according to any provision in law, but merely ad libitum (“at one’s pleasure”), and as a eucharistic offering to those to whom they imagined they owed the victory. But neither Abraham’s decimation, nor theirs, had anything to do, either with tithes as prescribed under the Mosaic dispensation, or as claimed under the Christian.” David Guzik, Henry Ironside, Paul Kretzmann, and Matthew Henry all agree that this was a voluntary tithe, and that this act is not to be used to force and obligatory 10% giving on the Christian. So give what you feel led to give. The important thing is to give. 

Why should we be always giving―/Giving money, giving love?

Jesus loves the cheerful giver,/He will bless us from above.

Why should we be always giving―/Sending gifts so far away?

There they need the news of Jesus,/Millions die while we delay.

Why should we be always giving?/Jesus freely gives to all;

Every day and every moment,/His uncounted mercies fall.

Why should we be always giving?/’Tis a joy like that above;

Blessings shared are blessings doubled,/Giving always goes with love. 

Let us give with joy and gladness,/Give with generous heart and hand;

Giving brings the Savior’s blessing,/Let us give at His command.

(“Joyful Giving”, Julia H. Johnston)

 

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen.

A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Deuteronomy 14 (Part 1)

This is a chapter that again contains things we have already covered so we’ll be skipping some verses. This is not the Department of Redundancy Department J. But we will look at some parts of this chapter. 

Deuteronomy 14:1-2—1 “You are the children of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. 2 For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Usually when God begins a statement He will begin by saying “I am the Lord”. But here, Moses begins by saying “You are the children of the LORD your God.” God often needed to remind the people, not only of who God is in relation to them, but also who they were in relation to God. And He would also remind other kings of who the people of Israel were. In Exodus He tells Moses to say to Pharaoh, “‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn”’” (Exodus 4:22). These words should have gotten Pharaoh’s attention. For the firstborn in this time was to be regarded as higher than any other. And if God says that Israel was His firstborn, it meant that they were to be highly regarded by all. It means that God regards them higher than all other peoples in the entire world. “You are the children of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” We who are in Christ are valued by God above all other people in the world. This fact should not make us arrogant, but it should rather humble us, that God has chosen us for no other reason than His sovereign will. There was nothing in me that would have made God say “Oh, he is so much better than anyone else. I want him!” On the contrary, I was a sinner just like everyone else. And there is nothing in anyone that makes them better than anyone else in the eyes of God. All are sinners, and if God had not saved anyone, none would be saved, and we would all receive our just reward—an eternity feeling God’s wrath. 

“So, what about the command to not shave the front of their heads for the dead?” This was a common practice at the time, to make extravagant markings in one’s flesh in their mourning of the dead, and cutting the hair on the front of one’s head was a more obvious sign of mourning. Like the prophets of Ba'al in 1^st Kings 18:28—So they cried aloud, and cut themselves, as was their custom, with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them. The pagans believed they would be heard for the anguish they suffered in cutting themselves (see also Leviticus 19:28). They thought that by the stripes they inflicted upon themselves they would be heard by their gods and the dead they were mourning would be given a better afterlife for it. Much like in the Roman Catholic System there were some who would beat themselves to show their contriteness and penance. Martin Luther used to do this before he came to know the truth of Scripture, that it is not by our own stripes, but “By His stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). When he officiated his first Mass, the weight of the righteousness of God washed over him

 

Luther began to speak the words of the mass, “We offer unto thee, the living, the true, the eternal God.” Luther later writes about saying these words, “At these words I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, ‘With what tongue shall I address such Majesty, seeing that all men ought to tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? Who am I, that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine Majesty? The angels surround Him. At his nod the earth trembles. And shall a miserable little pigmy say, ‘I want this, I ask for that’? For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and I am speaking to the living eternal and the true God.”

(found at https://themajestysmen.com/joshuajenkins/the-life-doctrine-of-martin-luther-pt-1/)

 It was then that Luther realized that it was not the beatings that he administered to himself that made him accepted in the eyes of God, but rather the stripes laid on Jesus and his faith in that sacrifice that made him righteous. “By His stripes we are healed.” 

There are many New Testament passages that infer this very thing. Ephesians 1:6—To the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. We are accepted in Christ, not on the basis of anything we do, but on the basis of what He has done. 2nd Corinthians 5:21—For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. God placed the curse that belonged to us and that we deserved on His perfect Son, so that by faith in Him we might not just have, but become the righteousness of God. Titus 3:4-5—4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. It is not by the works that we do that we obtain the mercy of God, for if it is our works that put us in right standing before God, then God is, by necessity, obliged to save us because of what we have done. Romans 11:5-6—5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace. If we can “earn” our salvation, then we are putting God under an obligation to save us. “So you’re saying we can just believe and we don’t have to do anything? We can just sit back and wait for our golden ticket to Paradise to be punched?” God forbid! James 2:18—But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. It is by our works that we show the world that we belong to Christ. (I posted on James 2 and works here.) 

“And the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” What made these people so special? Why should God look upon them more favorably then the people of Moab or Edom? Well, there was nothing about them that made them any better than any other peoples. God made a promise to one man, to make of his descendants a great nation. What did God see in Abraham that convinced God to make, even more than just a simple arrangement, but a covenant, with him? From what we have in the Scriptures, there was nothing great about Abraham, he was just a man living in Mesopotamia, and God called him to leave there and come to a land that He would give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A land Abraham had never seen before and had no idea about. And from this one man, God would make a people special to Him and separated to Him. A people to whom He would make covenant with also and give them the particulars about how they were to live before Him and what they were to do for their sins to be covered over. “But what about the Ammonite? Why didn’t God give these instructions to them?” That is not up to us to debate. This is what God wanted, and this is how He made it. Our ideas of “fairness” don’t mean a hill of beans compared to it. Psalm 115:3—But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. And it pleased Him to choose this little rag-tag group of slaves and bring them out of their slavery in Egypt and make of them a nation special to Him. 

And do not try to think of yourself more highly than the Israelites. Were they a stiff-necked people? Yes. Did they grumble and complain? Definitely. Did they often forget the goodness and mercy of God? No doubt. But do not think we are any better. How often do we, even after we know Christ, grumble and complain about our lot in life? How often do we forget Him in a fit of pride or anger? How many times do we lose sight of His mercy in keeping us from harm, and take the sacrifice of Jesus for granted? If you know Christ, if He has truly saved you from the wrath to come, if He has taken you out of this world of sin and death and set you apart to Himself, you are His forever! Are you set apart, sanctified by Christ? Hebrews 10:14—By one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Has He begun a good work in you? Philippians 1:6—He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ. Do you realize that you are a sheep, and do you hear your Master’s voice? John 10:27-29—27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.” Is God going to set someone apart to Himself and allow them to go back to serving Satan? What kind of mercy is that? All that would do would give impetus to the enemies of Christ to blaspheme Him. “Hah! He saved this one, but could not hold on to him! Not very mighty for one who claims to be ‘Almighty’!” But that is not the God we worship. What do we read in the book of Jude? Near the very end of the book? Jude 1:24—Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy. “Well, yeah, He is able to, but does He really?” What kind of a stupid question is that? Is God faithful? Of course He is. And if you have truly—truly—put your faith in Christ for your eternal salvation, and your life reflects that faith, God is faithful to preserve you until the very end. If you believe you can be unrighteous enough to lose your salvation, then you, by default, believe you can be righteous enough to keep it. 

Begin, my soul, some heavenly theme,/awake, my voice, and sing

The mighty works, or mightier name,/Of our eternal King.

Tell of his wondrous faithfulness,/And sound his power abroad;

Sing the sweet promise of his grace,/the quickening word of God.

Engraved as in eternal brass,/the mighty promise shines;

Nor can the powers of darkness raze/those everlasting lines.

His every word of grace is strong,/as that which built the skies;

The voice that rolls the stars along/speaks all the promises.

Now shall my fainting heart rejoice/to know thy favour sure:

I trust the all-creating voice,/and faith desires no more.

(“The Faithfulness of God”, Isaac Watts) 

Deuteronomy 14:3-21 outlines clean and unclean animals, those that were and were not acceptable as food. We have covered this here and here, so we will move on shortly. First I want to go over Deuteronomy 14:19, as this could be a place for the skeptic to latch onto and shout “contradiction!” Deuteronomy 14:19—“Also every creeping thing that flies is unclean for you; they shall not be eaten.” For the supposed contradiction the skeptic could point to John the Baptist, who ate locusts and wild honey. This is easily cleared up. However, by looking at Leviticus 11:20-22—20 “‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.’” Also the Targum of Jonathan renders Deuteronomy 14:19 as “And all flies (bees) and wasps, and all worms of vegetables and pulse, which come away from (materials of) food and fly as birds, are unclean to you, they may not be eaten.” The injunction was against eating any insect that could fly. The command is not that locusts and grasshoppers are abomination to eat, but that flies, bees, etc. are the abomination. So any hope the skeptic has of using this as a “Gotcha!” verse is sorely mistaken.

Part 2 next week

 

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen.