A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Deuteronomy 17 (Part 2)

Deuteronomy 17:8-13—8 “If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. 9 And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. 10 You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. 11 According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you. 12 Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.” 

To understand this properly we have to look back to the book of Exodus, where Reuel (Jethro) gave Moses instruction on setting up the judges over these matters. Exodus 18:19-22—19 “Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you.” This advice was given to Moses before God gave Moses the Law, but Moses instituted this arrangement of the various courts the people would stand before to bring their grievances to be heard. Remember, these were men, imperfect men, and there would be times when the issues brought to them would be too much or too difficult for them to rule on. These cases would be referred to the priests for final verdict and (if necessary) sentence. “Can you give an example of such a case?” Well, if two men fought each other and damage was done to one, but they could not determine if the damage was brought about willfully or if it was done through an act of self-defense or by accident. “Yes, I put his eye out, but he was going to kill me.” And the judge could not determine if the one who dealt the damaging blow did so rightly or wrongly. This was a matter “too hard for you to judge” and the matter would go before the priests who dwelt near the Tabernacle, or “the place which the LORD your God chooses.” (Today, one would not take an assault case to the traffic court.) These were the ones trained extensively in the Law, who talked about it day and night and were well-versed in the nuances of this Law. 

“Between degrees of guilt for bloodshed.” As I mentioned in a previous post, today we have 1^st-, 2^nd- and 3^rd-degree murder. Was the act premeditated? Were there mitigating circumstances? Was it self-defense? Did it occur in the midst of committing another felony? All these questions need to be weighed before a prosecutor brings a case to court. If they charge a person with 1^st-degree murder when no premeditation was involved, the person will be found not guilty, and the prosecutor cannot charge the person again for the murder (see the “Double Jeopardy” clause in the 5^th Amendment to the US Constitution). These issues may not be clear to the one judging a case in our text, so they may refer that one to the priests. Was the killing premeditated? Or was it accidental? This may not be something this judge could ascertain, and thus the case was bound up to the priests (as the Jerusalem Targum says). 

“Between one judgment or another.” There may arise a case where it is not clear what the judgment should be. What was the value of the ox that died? Would it be thirty shekels or fifty? Sometimes even these judges did not trust themselves to judge these matters rightly and felt it was better to refer such a case to one who knew the valuations better. 

“Or between one punishment or another.” Exodus 22:1—“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.” But what about a goat? Suppose a man steals a goat and sells it; how many goats should the offender give to replace it? Exodus 22:2-3—2 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.” But it was unknown whether the thief broke in during the night or if the sun had risen. How does the judge determine whether or not this would be a capital charge? 

In any of these three cases, if the judge decided he could not rightly apply the Law and render a just judgment, he was to send the case to the priests who were ministering at the Tabernacle. “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment.” These were the men I talked about earlier, whose lives were dedicated to studying the Law of God, to applying that Law to the various cases that came before them, to meting out justice with mercy and righteousness. And yes, there was mercy and righteousness in the Law of God. Suppose the woman who was defiled was trying to shout, but the man covered her mouth so she could not scream for help. Should she be punished along with the man? No, the woman could not be heard screaming, but she did try to scream. To you and me it’s a no-brainer, but these men were charged with administering the justice delivered to them by God Himself. And it was this concept of justice with mercy and righteousness that Jehoshaphat had in mind when he arranged the judges in the courts when he was king. 2nd Chronicles 19:5-11—5 Then he set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, 6 and said to the judges, "Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes." 8 Moreover in Jerusalem, for the judgment of the LORD and for controversies, Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the chief fathers of Israel, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he commanded them, saying, "Thus you shall act in the fear of the LORD, faithfully and with a loyal heart: 10 Whatever case comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, whether of bloodshed or offenses against law or commandment, against statutes or ordinances, you shall warn them, lest they trespass against the LORD and wrath come upon you and your brethren. Do this, and you will not be guilty. 11 And take notice: Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king's matters; also the Levites will be officials before you." Jehoshaphat was bringing back this concept of justice that Moses had laid out but had been forgotten. The poor would now be heard just as well as the rich. The widow would have the same justice as the woman with a husband. The orphan would be treated as well as the king’s son. 6 “Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes.” The administering of the Law was not to be done as a way to shield those who could do things for the judges. But that is what it had turned into. These judges saw their position as a way to gain wealth and privilege and status among the people, not as the one who administered God’s Law rightly and who were charged with upholding the name and righteousness of God. The same thing is happening today. There are judges who see themselves as better than others, as those who can keep their wealthy friends (or their kids) from having to pay a speeding ticket or keep them out of jail when they do the things that God calls abominable. 

When Jeffrey Epstein (who, by the way did not kill himself) was convicted in 2008 of sexual crimes against minor girls, he (and his wealthy, also guilty friends) received, basically, a slap on the wrist as a sentence. And they were given immunity from future prosecution. The US Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility said it found nothing wrong with the deal given him by then-US Attorney Alex Acosta, only that he used “poor judgment”. "There is no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes." Not saying any bribes were given or taken in the Epstein case, but it is awfully suspicious that this man was arrested and charged with sexual abuse against 36 underage girls, but was only sentenced for one count of solicitation of a minor (to which he pled guilty), for which he was sentenced to 13 months in federal prison, and given 12 hours a day, 6 days a week work release. If this was a street pimp, he would have been nailed to the wall and sent to a maximum-security prison for the mandated maximum sentence. But because Epstein was wealthy, he received a stupidly light sentence. Both cases (the real and the hypothetical) should receive very stiff sentences, but the wealthy get preferential treatment while the other does not. This should not be the case and would not have been the case under the Mosaic Law, where the poor would receive the same justice as the wealthy (it may be better to say the wealthy would receive the same justice as the poor). 

10 “You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. 11 According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you.” When the priest makes his decision, it is final. There was no appeal. These were the men who ministered to God, who communicated with God, and who understood better than anyone the Law of God. They were the final arbiters, and what they decided was best, and their decision was to be followed, no matter how the involved parties felt. These were not men who could be bought or bribed and thus ruled honestly and correctly. Their basis for their rulings was not their own likes or dislikes; it was not how they felt about one party or the other. They were bound by only one thing, the Law of God and His justice. And delivering a ruling based on His law and His righteousness let everyone know that it was God and God alone who possessed righteousness. 

These cases were not tried in the court of public opinion, but before God Himself. And judges should not be swayed one way or the other when presiding over cases by what the public feels should be the proper rendering of the case. The public may think it is wrong to send a man to prison for a certain crime, despite what the law says. Perhaps they feel the judge should be lenient toward him or that maybe the defendant should be found guilty no matter what the facts of the case are. The case of Tawana Brawley is one example of this. Ms. Brawley was a young black girl who, in 1987, accused four white men of raping her, writing racial slurs across her chest, smearing her with feces and leaving her in a garbage bag. The case drew headlines across the nation and a public outcry against racism. She became a rallying cry for the black community and drew the attention of black activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Long story short, this turned out to be a hoax, perpetrated by Ms. Brawley herself. She made up the story to avoid getting in trouble with her parents for visiting her boyfriend in jail. In 2020, George Floyd died while being arrested by police in Minneapolis. The case, again, drew widespread headlines and criticism of police and their use of force. It sparked numerous riots and many businesses in many cities were burned in protest. An officer, Derek Chauvin, was arrested and tried for murdering Floyd. And even though one toxicologist found that Floyd had “a fatal level” of Fentanyl in his system and even though the autopsy found “no evidence of asphyxiation” (https://www.foxnews.com/us/medical-examiner-george-floyd-fentanyl-system) Chauvin was found guilty of murder. 

Both cases highlight the use of public opinion to try to sway jurors to find the defendant guilty or innocent, whether the defendant is actually guilty or innocent. But the priests were not to be swayed, seeing as how they were ruling in cases using God’s Law to do so, and in front of Him. The weight of the fact that not only was God on His throne watching things transpire but was right there watching the case was enough to keep the priests from ruling by anything other than the Torah. And the judge listening to the case was to abide by their ruling and to not stray from it. Just as our Supreme Court, when they render a ruling, are not to make new laws but to rule on the merits of the cases before them by using the US Constitution as their guide, to determine if the rulings in the lower courts were correct. And here, the priests were the Supreme Court (so to speak). Even if the priest ruled in a way that you do not understand, and seems contrary, you must listen to and obey his words, as he is the one who ministers to God. Rabbi Jarchi wrote, “Even if he (the judge) tells you about what appears to you to be right that it is left, or about what appears to you to be left that it is right, you have to obey him; how much the more is this so if actually he tells you about what is evidently right that it is right and about what is left that it is left (cf. Sifrei Devarim 154:5).” Even if what the priest tells you seems to be the right or left, you are to abide by his decision. Because you do not know better than the priest to whom you sent the case for clarification. Will you go against the ruling of one who knows better than you do? 

Let’s take an argument the skeptic uses. “So, if a woman is raped, and the rapist turns and says they believe in Jesus, he can go to heaven and the woman can go to Hell? That’s not fair!” That person is saying that they know more about justice than God. Because they are looking only at temporal justice, whereas God looks at eternal justice. If the man commits such a heinous act, is sent to prison, and God softens his heart to hear and believe the Gospel, and the man turns to Christ, saying “Be merciful to me, a sinner!” and lives out the rest of his life in the ways of God, he has paid his debt for his crime, and now God will deal with his soul rightly, granting pardon for his sin and gifting to him eternal life. He goes to the woman and asks for her forgiveness. She refuses to forgive him, saying that what he did is unforgiveable. And she lives the rest of her life, never thinking that she has ever sinned, not worrying about her eternal soul, and living as if there is no God. How can God grant her eternal life, even though a heinous thing has been done to her, when she has denied Him and His Son who died to forgive sins? Does she understand justice and mercy better than God? She does not. She may understand temporal justice, but does not understand, nor does she care about eternal justice. 

12 “Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.” If the judges were bound to obey the ruling of the priest, how much more the parties in the case. The priest ruled thus, the judge agreed—what have you to say against them? Both were (ultimately) appointed by God, and who are you to answer back against God? The Hebrew word translated “presumptuously” is זָדוֹן (zadon, “pride, insolence, presumptuousness, arrogance”). It denotes an attitude of haughtiness and thinking that the person is somehow better than others. It is used six times in the Old Testament, with four of those times being in the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 18:22—“When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.” Numbers 15:30—“But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people.” In Exodus 21:14 it is translated “with premeditation”. Exodus 21:14—“But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.” As you can see, the word “presumptuous” is often associated with something that would call for the person being cut off from the people or being executed. And it is from the Hebrew root word זוּד (zud, “To boil, boil up, seethe, act proudly, act presumptuously, act rebelliously, be presumptuous, be arrogant, be rebelliously proud”). Pride was (and is) a dangerous thing. It was what doomed our father Adam to his downfall and infected all of humanity with him. It was the pride of Solomon who, having greater wisdom than any man ever, loved so many pagan wives (1st Kings 11:1-12). It was pride that led David to number Israel near the end of his life (1st Chronicles 21:1). It was the pride of Nebuchadnezzar that brought him low in the eyes of God when He made him eat grass like a wild beast for a year (Daniel 4:31-33). It was Simon’s pride that caused him to boast to Jesus that he would not betray Him (Matthew 26:35). It always was, and always is, pride that leads men to commit sins, sins that are contrary to God and put the man upon a pedestal. And God will break that man, so he sees that only God is God.

 

 “Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die.” If a man went against the ruling of the priest and the judge, he was showing an arrogant contempt for the men of God, and men like that do not need to be living in a community of God’s people, and they need to be rooted out lest they infect the entire people with their arrogance. Proverbs 16:18—Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 18:12—Before destruction the heart of a man is haughty, and before honor is humility. Proverbs 21:24—A proud and haughty man—"Scoffer" is his name; he acts with arrogant pride. This is the attitude that must be kept far away from God’s people, and one we should always examine ourselves for, to see if there is any root of pride within us, that can grow into full-blown pride, which can lead us into sin and bring us destruction. John Trapp:

 

But God loadeth such a man with disgrace, as here, and gives him his due character. Men also will hate him and despise him for a "son of Belial," as Nabal’s servants said of him; for a mad frantic fellow, being once enraged, cares not what he says, as Jonas, what he doth, as Saul, who dealing in proud wrath, was so kindled by the devil, that he could not be quenched till he fell into the unquenchable lake. Besides the infamy that will never be washed off, the brand of reproach, like that of Dathan and Abiram, who rose up in proud wrath against Moses and Aaron, and are therefore worthily stigmatised.

 

Part 3 next week

 

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen. 

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.