Judgments of the Sinai Covenant
Statutes, Sinai Covenant, ordinances, Law, Old Testament Law, Law of God
|
Major Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I
cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will
I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the
stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and
cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do
them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the
land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be
your God." ( Eze 36:25-28)
Apparently
God is going to have to wait until He brings His people to their inheritance
before they will properly live by His statutes and judgments. Isn't that a shame? Are those that consider themselves
spiritual Israel an exception? It
doesn't indicate that here. It appears
that even a significant portion of the congregation of God will be left
behind when the truly faithful are protected in the end times (Rev
12:17). The truly righteous will be
faithful in heeding not only the general instruction of the commandments, but
also the detail instructed by the judgments, which are based on those
commandments. This is how it will be
when God Himself takes charge. This
provides the few who might recognize this with an opportunity to truly be a
special treasure to our Creator.
The
rest of the congregation of God goes about their routine, comfortable that
they know every important truth, that they are rich and increased in the
goods of God. They know not that they
are in fact wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked before their Creator
(Rev 3:17). No wonder they have found
no significant new truth for decades.
How could they when they already know it all?
The
very culture extant within the congregation of God resists any openness to
new understanding from anywhere but the very top leadership. However, when God corrects a situation He
doesn't always do it the way one expects.
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to
put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put
to shame the things which are mighty;" (I Cor 1:27). This can hardly be summarized as being
'from the top down' in the way church leadership would intend it.
What
does God say about His Shepherds, the leaders, the top? "As I
live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock
became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd,
neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed
themselves, and fed not my flock" (Eze 34:8).
"And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet
the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 16
For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit
those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that
is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of
the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. 17
Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock!" (Zec 11:15e-17)
Not
until David is resurrected will God's people have a proper shepherd that will
teach them all of God's law. "And David my servant shall be
king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in
my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them." (Eze
37:24) If you wish to have at least an
inkling of what on earth these judgments are, keep reading. Probably no one fully understands every
aspect of what our Creator is trying to tell us with these judgments, but we
know where to start. The most
concentrated place is Exodus 21:1 "Now these are the judgments
which thou shalt set before them."
To
properly understand the Creator's judgments one must first understand that
there is a difference between the law of God and the Law of Moses. They both deal with many of the same
issues. Indeed the Law of Moses
clarifies and adds additional detail to some of the Law of God, but it also
adds some practices of which there is no hint in the Law of God. It is not at cross-purposes with the Law of
God, but in some aspects it does not conform to the intent of the Law of God.
The
main example is probably the institution of the Aaronic priesthood and
especially the Levites as God's representatives. It was God's intent that the entire nation
of Israel was to represent Him as priests,
"And ye shall be
unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which
thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Ex
19:6)
However,
after the episode of the golden calf it became apparent that they were not
worthy of life, let alone capable of properly representing the Creator. Something else had to be done. At the behest of Moses, the Creator started
putting together a plan that would allow Him to continue working with Israel
(Ex 34:9-10). It created a second
covenant, the terms of which are specifically Deuteronomy (Deu 29:1,
31:24-26), but it also assumes the existence of the earlier detail of Genesis
through Numbers (Deu 1:3). This
covenant was called ‘this covenant’ (Deu 29:9, 14) or the Law of Moses (Josh
23:6).
The
tribe of Levi was established as a buffer between God and the rest of Israel,
(Num 1:50-53, Deu 10:8). Instead of
being the go-between for God and the Gentiles, Israel was in need of a
go-between of their own. The law was
the terms of this covenant. It was
based on the institution of the Levitical priesthood to direct Israel.
“Now if perfection was
through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received
the Law), what further need {was there} for another priest to arise according
to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of
Aaron?” (Heb 7:11
NASB)
One
purpose of The Law, the law of Moses, was to more thoroughly document the Law
of God, (Deu 31:26). It was another
witness against them. They obviously
didn't 'get' the meaning intended by just Exodus 20-23. As such, the Law of Moses adds detail and
clarifies some of the original judgments given at Sinai. However, the most concentrated place where
God's judgments are recorded is in Exodus 21:1- 23:19. This is the foundation of the original instruction
under which Israel was to live, before The Law existed. People are sometimes confused because the
law of God is included in the Law of Moses.
Exodus 20-23 is included in Genesis through Deuteronomy even though it
documents an earlier law.
It
seems apparent that there were certain things understood in that time and
culture, which we do not automatically understand now. So fortunately for us, we have the Law of
Moses to consult. In our case, we are
even more fortunate to have the New Testament and the instruction of Jesus
Christ. However, a little thought and
a sincere desire to understand would go a long way toward understanding the
mind of God from just the covenant of Exodus 20 and the following judgments. Contrary to popular opinion, the Sinai
covenant is not the "Old Covenant" of Hebrews 8-9. See my article, "Are you under the
law, or what is the Old Covenant?"
We
also need to keep in mind that the instruction given at Sinai was a
minimum requirement. If Israel
had obeyed this instruction they would have avoided death (Ex
21:12, 29, 22:18-20, 24). God would
have been pleased with this and blessed them, (Ex 23:20-33) but these
judgments are setting a minimum standard, not the expected standard,
especially for a spirit led Christian.
Most
people think the various judgments of the Sinai covenant are just a jumble of
miscellaneous mundane regulations that were randomly documented in
scripture. Actually this is not the
case. There are four or five general
divisions into which the judgments are grouped. They deal with 1) Property rights, 2)Bodily
harm, 3)Theft, 4)Proper honor of God and what seems to be a subsection
expanding on Sabbaths.
Some
of these judgments lend themselves to more comment than others. Also how they apply to us may encompass
multiple aspects, not all of which fit neatly in the divisions in which they
are included. Scriptures are quoted
from the New King James Version unless otherwise stated. When partial verses are quoted a small
letter is added as a suffix to the verse.
The letter indicates the relative position of the phrase in the verse.
Section 1, Property rights
Ex 21:2-6 Servants’ relationship to masters
This
first regulation clearly defined as a judgment is a great place to
start. It deals with slavery. On the surface one might look at this and
immediately discard it. Especially in
the Western world we renounced slavery hundreds of years ago. Of what value is this to us?
First,
we should remember that slavery was not uncommon at all just 200 years
ago. Of course his judgment was given
thousands of years ago. So this
judgment is not nearly as out of date as we might initially think. There is also no instruction in the New
Testament that forbids slavery and a number of verses that recognize it in
place. Indeed Philemon, to whom the
New Testament book was written, evidently owned slaves and Paul honored that
position. (See Philemon 10-15) We
should also be aware that slave owners were not expected to be heartless and
cruel taskmasters as they are often pictured to be (Ex 21:5).
In
fact, the law clarifies that not only is an Israelite 'slave' to be freed
after seven years of service, but he is really to be considered a hired hand,
not a slave (Lev 25:39-40).
Slavery
still exists today. In the Western
world it is hidden. In some cultures
it is commonplace. Where it exists,
His direct instruction still applies.
In spirit there are still master-slave relationships within every
family. We learn God's mind based on
this instruction.
Specifically,
this judgment talks of Israelite slaves.
One reason Israelites were made slaves was to pay a debt (Ex 22:3, Lev
25:39). This certainly seems like a
better solution than prison (Mat 18:30) or modern bankruptcy, where the
merchant simply loses and irresponsibility is rewarded.
When we read this judgment it is easy to simply read
the letter of this law and think it deals only with slavery. An additional purpose of this judgment is
to recognize property rights. Property
rights are as important today as they were then.
:2 "If
you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years: and in the seventh he
shall go out free and pay nothing."
This
apparently applied to Israelites only (Lev 25:45-46). God expects that brothers in Israel
(everyone) would work to build one another up, not keep one another stuck in
a system that prevents them from advancing or at least being
self-sufficient. Part of the purpose
for slavery was to rehabilitate. This
is clear in Deuteronomy 15:12-15 where this instruction is repeated and
clarified. The slave was not just to
be released, but he was to be given a jump-start toward independently
supporting himself. The master was to
supply him with livestock and some hope of making it on his own. This was the intent of Exodus 21:2. Deuteronomy 15:12-18 was added as a witness
against Israel. God promised to make
good the investment the master made toward the former slave’s well-being (vs
18).
This
brings to mind the instruction of Matthew 25:34-40. "Assuredly, I say to you,
inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it
to Me." (vs 40b). We
will see a number of places throughout these judgments that God considers it
His function to be the protector of the poor. This is the work of God.
Of
course, the overall purpose of the creation, and therefore a significant part
of His work, is to make children for Himself.
However, in ancient Israel the teaching and instruction of those
potential children was delegated to the tribe of Levi. Overall He has taken a hands-off approach
hoping we will seek to be like Him. He
expected that everyone would seek His way before Levi was established as the
priestly tribe.
Jeremiah
34 shows God’s disgust with the job the leaders of Israel have done.
‘Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against
the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them
to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more;
for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be
food for them." For thus says the
Lord GOD: "Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out."'
(Vs. 10-11)
The
main instruction was left to others.
It was only after failure that the Creator was moved to involve
Himself. Even the Patriarchs were to
be instructed by their parents (Gen 18:19) not directly by God. He follows His own advice. " Let
another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own
lips." (Pro 27:2)
Anyway,
Israel didn't get the point that they were to truly regard their fellow man
as they would regard themselves.
Jeremiah 34 documents at least part of the reason why Babylon took
them captive. They would not release
their Hebrew slaves (Vs 14-20).
So,
we may not have slaves to release, but do we have any part in a system that
keeps our brethren functioning at a subsistence level, so there is little
hope they will ever be able to extract themselves? Hopefully not. We should attempt to lift up our
fellows. This applies just as much
today as it did in ancient Israel. It
applies to non-believers as well. God
will make up whatever we think we might personally lose in the process of
lifting our brothers.
:3-4 "If
he comes in by himself he shall go out by himself: if he comes in married,
then his wife shall go out with him.
If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or
daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go
out by himself."
This
makes pretty clear that the slave retains whatever he had when he
arrived. The master should not
appropriate anything from the slave.
However,
anything acquired from a master while working for a master was still the
master’s, even a wife and children.
The slave was simply an extension of the master. This may seem somewhat heartless, but the
Israelite slave was a slave for a reason.
He had a debt to pay. Again,
property rights were the issue.
It
may seem heartless to break up the slave’s family. That whole knotty issue could be avoided in
two ways. 1)Don't become a slave. 2)Don't take a wife from your master.
How
does this apply to us? This particular
situation clarifies God's thoughts regarding employer/employee relations. It
can be easily applied in principle to an invention (sometimes referred to by
its inventor as 'my baby') someone comes up with while an employee. The company for which the employee works
bought, paid for and therefore owned his/her time and any invention created
with that time. It belongs to the
company unless some other agreement is worked out. It would be considered theft, based on this
instruction (vs. 4) as it applied to slaves, for the employee to take his
knowledge of this invention elsewhere and sell it.
This principle is recognized today in
employee/employer regulations. Laws
prohibit people from taking company property and or secrets and selling them
in some form or other to a competitor.
With this ancient example God has weighed in with His opinion on an
issue in modern society that no one would have thought of during the time of
Moses.
There are places in the New Testament where believers
are called the servants or bondservants of Christ (I Cor 4:1, Phil 1:1). This indicates believers are the slaves of
Jesus Christ. Pondering the function
of a slave and their relationship to their master is well worth the effort,
since any believer is a slave. Slavery
is not an irrelevant institution to a believer, since he/she is one.
Questions have come up regarding how slaves and
children should conduct themselves in relationship to their masters and/or
parents in the New Testament. This
verse is a key to understanding those issues, but it is a large enough
subject that it will not be covered here.
Ask for the article on “How to serve two masters”.
:5-6 But if the servant plainly says, "I love my master, my wife,
and my children; I will not go out free". Then his master shall bring him to the
judges. He shall also bring him to the
door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl;
and he shall serve him forever.
The
last two verses of this section describe what happens if the slave likes his
situation just the way it is. This
presumes that a master has been kind, fair and probably even generous to the
slave. God expected this to be a somewhat normal situation. Again this reinforces the instruction of
Matthew 25:40. We are to treat
everyone with respect and kindness.
Job certainly recognized the need for respect of his slaves. (Job
31:13-15) He knew God would require an
explanation. He also knew if he were
overly hard on his servant, he would have no reason to expect mercy from God.
It
is worth noting that there is no penalty specified if a master does not
release a slave after six years. A
blood covenant would have a default penalty of death. Yet when God chose to punish Israel for
ignoring this instruction he sent them into captivity (See Jer 34:8-22). God had the option of doing this because of
the covenant made in Moab, basically Deuteronomy. The Law of Moses allowed for extensive
curses of which captivity was one.
This
judgment clarified aspects of the commandments dealing with stealing, the
Sabbath and respect to the Creator God alone.
We disrespect God when we disrespect man, made in His image (Jam
3:8-18).
:7-11 Women's rights in marriage
And if a man
sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the
menservants do. 8 If she please not
her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be
redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he
hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And
if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the
manner of daughters.
Women
were treated a little differently than men in servitude. It seems to be assumed that a female slave
will become her master's wife. This is
probably why she was not to be freed.
The marital relationship was intended to be for life. However, if during the betrothal period,
the master decided he didn't want this woman, he could sell her back to her
family, which we assume would want to rescue her from a difficult situation.
It
seems an important aspect of this, is the statement here that the man acted
"deceitfully". Why is this
assumed?
In
acquiring a wife the man is making a commitment. The commitment of betrothal in those times
was little different from the commitment of marriage. At betrothal the man was saying, "Yes,
I will care and provide for you".
It is his responsibility to be sure he will follow through before he
makes that commitment. God expects us
to stand by our word.
Now
before the marriage is actually consummated, irreversible damage is not done,
so God allows the man to back out. He
must, though, make the situation good.
If she was to be his son's wife rather than his, he must treat her as
he would his own daughter.
One
lesson for us is that we need to be very careful when we make a
commitment. If we say we will do
something, but don't, we are dealing deceitfully. It is our responsibility to make the
situation right. I think it safe to
say that God does not appreciate deceit in any of our conduct. If we find that we have over-committed
ourselves we need to go the extra mile to make the situation as right as we
can.
Now
some in our society would probably be offended by God's treatment of women in
this judgment. They seem to be simple
possessions of the man. Indeed,
throughout the whole Bible women are expected to be subject to some man,
either a husband or father. Of course
they are also to be loved, provided for and protected by the men. "Husbands,
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for
it" (Eph. 5:25).
Certainly there have been abuses in this area. Because God allowed a wife to be purchased,
doesn't necessarily mean that He expected it to be done that way.
God
can work with cultural diversity. His
judgments are broad and general in scope.
He expects us to seek the spirit of the law, i.e. the underlying
principle(s). They should then be
applied to fit our particular situation.
Any particular society needs to examine all of scripture in
determining what is cultural diversity and what is Law of God. "if a man sell his daughter"
does not mean that God requires or expects us to sell our daughters. On the other hand throughout scripture, God
deals more directly with the male than the female. The pervasive nature of this should not
automatically be ignored and dismissed as simply a matter of cultural
diversity.
:10-11 If he take him another wife; her food, her
raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not
these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
This
is another item that is addressed directly to a particular culture. However, some have said that if you are
estranged from your wife you cannot marry another. That would be adultery. Based on this judgment, God evidently
doesn't feel that way about it. He
doesn't consider it adultery to have two wives at once. Why would He be displeased at having two
wives, just one at a time?
Matthew
19:9 and Mark 10:11 seem to say if you divorce and then marry again you are
committing adultery. Is this teaching
something different?
It
should be remembered that Jesus was speaking either Hebrew or Aramaic. His subject was divorce not multiple
wives. Jesus words were translated
into Greek at some point and then into English for us. The Hebrew indicated by the Greek, that
ultimately became 'divorces… and marries' in Matthew, Mark and Luke, actually
indicates a meaning of 'divorces in order to marry'. (For an explanation of the Hebrew as it
applies here see '"And" or "In order to" Remarry' by D.
Biven in Jerusalem Perspective Jan-March 1996 issue)
In
Jesus’ day there was a relatively new teaching that a man could divorce for
almost any reason. Some were using
this to dump one wife so that they could marry someone else. Jesus was condemning those that sidestepped
the judgment of Exodus 21:10. It is
not a problem to marry another if you adequately support the first. However, if you dump one woman for another
you are being unfaithful. That is
adultery, being deceitful and stealing from the first wife what is due.
It
stands to reason that even if you dump your wife and don't marry another you
are committing adultery as well. God
expects us to be faithful to our word.
Especially in the case of a marriage, if we commit to something, we
should stick with it.
It
is somewhat interesting that what is expected of the man could be described
as maintaining her in the manner to which she has become accustomed. This is familiar terminology to us because
of the high rate of divorce and rulings in our own judicial systems. This seems to be what God considers the
minimum due a wife. As such, it would
also follow that should the couple divorce, a godly breadwinner would not
begrudge the non-working spouse this level of support. Other factors might need to be considered,
but this would be the initial standard.
These
judgments on rights of marriage clarify the meaning of adultery, stealing and
bearing false witness. If the wife was
not properly cared for she was free to leave.
I would assume she took her possessions with her, which could have
included a sizable dowry.
If
the wife was not supported as was appropriate and left, this does not mean
that God considered the situation closed.
The man had neglected God's instruction and was unfaithful toward his
wife. If she were unable to adequately
support herself and fell into poverty, God would have included her in a
special status that will be examined soon.
Section 2, Bodily harm
:12-14 Murder or manslaughter
He that
smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God
deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall
flee. 14 But if a man come
presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him
from mine altar, that he may die.
If
someone was killed accidentally, or without forethought and planning, the
person responsible had the option to flee to a city of refuge where he would
be safe until guilt, innocence or level of responsibility could be
judged. The details of this are explained
in Numbers 35:6-34 and Joshua 20:6.
Although
an unintentional death would not result in the execution of the person at
fault, it should be noted that a penalty was still paid. In most cases the guilty party would need
to remain in the city of refuge until the High Priest died. More than likely this was looking forward
to the time when our High Priest, Jesus Christ, would die for our sins. Someone had to die to atone even for the
accident. Also the culpable party had
his life seriously interrupted. Yet he
was still in an environment where he could be productive. He was also in an environment that was made
up of a significant number of people that understood the ways of God. Hopefully he would learn how to be more
careful.
It
should be noted that the two parties involved here are described as
neighbors. The exact distance, which
they lived from one another, is irrelevant.
No exception is made for a foreigner.
We are all neighbors.
Of
course, the basis for this judgment is the commandment not to murder. The
penalty for violation was death or severe restriction until the death of the
high priest.
:15 Striking
parents
15 And he who strikes his father or mother shall be
surely put to death.
Simply
striking a parent could bring the death penalty. This is likely because it is indicative of
so many problems. First of course, the
fifth commandment requires honor of one's parents and is the only command
that includes in it a blessing if done.
Second, we can see with the teaching of the New Testament that the
real intention is that we not even hate our brother let alone our parents.
"Whoever
hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal
life abiding in him." (I John 3:15).
God is telling us what very bad behavior is. If we wish to really please Him, we should
do the opposite, not just stop short of the condemned offense. This judgment doesn't condemn for hatred
alone, but as a believer our mind, not just the body, is to be subject and in
harmony with God. "casting down arguments and every high thing that
exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into
captivity to the obedience of Christ" (II Cor 10:5)
There
are other judgments we will see that talk of honoring those in
authority. It should be noted that God
is our ultimate parent. In a similar
way Psalms 82:6 claims that we are gods.
We create our children and are gods to them particularly when they are
young. The relationship is very
similar between children and their parents and the parents and their
Creator. If the child is so
hardhearted that he strikes out at his creator will he ever be able to
respect the real Creator?
“Children,
obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord”.
(Col 3:20) This reinforces the concept
that when we honor our parents we honor God.
If we don’t honor our parents, we are establishing habits that will
ultimately separate us from the Creator too.
This could probably be said of everything we discuss here, but it is
especially true of this relationship.
The
Ten Commandments and these judgments were directed mainly toward the adults,
particularly the male adults. All the
people stood by the mountain in Exodus 20, but even the command to honor the
parents is directing adults to care for their aged parents (Mark 7:9-13), not
necessarily directing small children to obey their parents. Although I'm sure God intended that anyone
old enough would understand, He was dealing with the adults. It was the adults' job to teach their
children.
There
is the possibility that a child will refuse to respect and obey his
parents. I would expect that as long
as the child was under the control of the parents, the parents were
responsible for enforcement of all applicable judgments with regard to their
children.
Legal
age was evidently twenty (Ex 30:14, Num 1:3, 18, 14:28-29, 26:2). Before that time, or possibly even after,
if a child was uncontrollable, the Law of Moses instructed that parents could
seek the assistance of the community to deal with this rebellious child (Deu
21:18-21). The specific example cited
indicates the child would be stoned.
This
seems rather severe. However, we are
dealing with a situation where the child is undoubtedly a major accident
waiting to happen. Should it happen to
the cause of the accident or the victim?
Milder penalties may have been an option, but certainly if things went
this far, the child had a serious and dangerous problem.
The
immediate basis for this judgment is the commandment to honor parents, have
no other Gods and do no murder. The penalty for violation was death.
:16 Kidnapping
He who
kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be
put to death.
Kidnapping
occurs for a number of reasons, but the net effect on the victim is that his
life is stolen. Anyone who does this
deserves the same effect on his or her life.
This conduct shows a blatant disregard for one’s fellow man and is
absolutely contrary to the intent of God’s law. Particularly one who holds his victim for
ransom typically threatens to kill the victim if the ransom is not paid. In doing so he is acknowledging that he is
a murderer. Whether or not he actually
follows through is irrelevant. He has
condemned himself.
There
are unfortunately bizarre circumstances today where a parent kidnaps his or
her own child. I doubt God had that
situation in mind when this judgment was set in place for Israel.
The
commandments under which this law falls are: don’t steal or murder. The
penalty for violation was death.
:17 Cursing
parents
And he who
curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
This
is another level removed from the physical striking of verse 15. Simply the vocalizing of ill will toward a
parent makes it apparent that this child is of the same mind as the one who
strikes and is to be removed from the nation.
Reading
what we have about the spirit and intent of the law, can we now see that the
thought of the heart is what is really important? Just because we don’t actually murder
someone, don’t actually strike them and don’t actually curse them, does that
mean we are in line with the mind of God?
It seems apparent at this point that we are not even to hate in our
heart. This is where the violence
begins and this is where it must be stopped.
This is made perfectly clear in I John 3:15: "Whoever hates
his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life
abiding in him".
Throughout
the scriptures there are basically two types of people; the wicked and the
righteous. Having respect for the righteous
shouldn’t be a problem. To respect the
wicked we must simply remember that they are the children of our Creator
too. God gives them the warmth of the
sun and water too (Mat 5:48). He gives
them minimum necessities because He’s not finished with them yet. He does not have to do this. For their benefit and ours, He leaves the
tares with the wheat (Mat 13:28-30).
If He did not do this He probably would have plucked us up with the
other tares long ago.
In
Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:10, Jesus linked this verse directly with Exodus
20:12, which commands us to honor our parents. It is apparent from that context that
honoring parents is not just a matter of talking to them respectfully, but
caring for them in their old age. As
such it is a good example of the connection between belief, faith and
works. If one truly believes he will
act on that belief.
The
immediate basis for this judgment is the commandment to honor parents, have
no other God’s and do no murder. The
penalty for violation was death.
:18-19 Causing injury
"If men contend with each other, and one strikes the
other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to
his bed. 19. If he rises again and
walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be
acquitted. He shall only pay for the
loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed."
God
evidently places a great deal of value on personal responsibility. If the injured man was permanently injured
it appears that the perpetrator would become responsible for taking care of
the victim for the rest of his life.
This is indeed a serious matter.
It
stands to reason that this applies in everything else we do. We take responsibility for our
actions. This is also evident in other
judgments that follow.
There
are people who blame the insurance industry for undermining a proper sense of
responsibility in people and thwarting justice. They have a point. Insurance tends to relieve people of
responsibility. At the same time
insurers are in the business of making money.
They have staff on hand whose job it is to pay out the very least they
can to victims.
This
judgment would be based on the command not to steal.
:20-27 Injury
or death to servant
"And if a man beats his servant or his maidservant
with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a
day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
It
seems the difference here is intent and/or self-control. If the servant didn’t die that day it could
be assumed that the owner acted in haste, without thinking and there was no
intent to kill. In that case he has
significantly injured himself. He has
lost his servant and that is deemed a just punishment.
However,
if the servant dies in short order, the owner was either out of control or
intended to kill and “thou shalt do no murder”. He is to be punished. Exactly what that punishment should be is
not stated. We have to assume it is
not an automatic death penalty or that would have been stated as it was for
the murder in verse 12 above. There is
no mention of the need to flee to a city of refuge.
The
next judgment provides for a judge to levy a monetary fine. I’m not sure who would receive the fine in
this case. Perhaps a fair penalty
might be to release a relative from servitude if the victim had relatives
under the same masters’ control. The
remedy in this situation is probably left rather open ended to give the
judges flexibility to issue an appropriate penalty. In any case, even though the slave is the
property of the owner, that did not give the owner the right to do with him
100% as he pleased.
Even
though it is apparent that slaves were second-class citizens, in this case
there is clear evidence that the Creator cared for them too. According to the Critical and
Experimental Commentary (Exodus) by Robert Jamieson, this law was unique
in the ancient world until about the first century. Nowhere else was there any concern for the
loss of a slave. The Creator is
concerned for all life, especially human.
Everyone deserves a certain minimum level of respect. The Creator is faithful to give this (Mat
5:44-48) and expects His children to do the same.
This
judgment clarified the definition of murder.
The penalty for the owner was loss of the slave’s hours of labor or if
the slave died, the local judges evidently had significant flexibility to
exact a penalty depending on the circumstances.
:22-25 injury
to unborn child
"If men fight, and hurt a woman with
child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he
shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him;
and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23.But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25. Burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe
for stripe.
The
injured party has a strong hand in determining what the penalty should
be. Apparently other judges make the
final assessment. This again
underscores the importance of personal responsibility. Anyone who injures someone else is
responsible for making it right, not according to what the responsible person
deems to be fair, but according to what the injured party thinks is
fair. “For what credit is it if,
when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently?” (I Pet
2:20) When in error a believer should
be anxious to make the situation right.
This
is a fairly famous area of scripture that has been used by many who seek
revenge. Interestingly, some of this
is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 5:38. “Ye
have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye
resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to
him the other also.”
Jewish views of Pacifism by
David Bivin, from Jerusalem Perspective, (www.jerusalemperspective.com),
examines this text in Matthew and determines that Jesus is not advocating
pacifism, and especially not revenge.
“Resist not” in this context most likely is intended to mean don’t
contend, get even or get revenge. The
original judgment is intending to emphasize the exacting of a just and fair
penalty. It is not recommending
mutilation as a penalty, but fairness, equity and justice. It does not necessarily make sense to maim
someone even if they maimed someone else.
That just makes two people who will have difficulty providing for
themselves. Jesus is not correcting
the original instruction, but talking to a misinterpretation that allowed
revenge.
A clarification in
Leviticus 19:18 reinforces this. “You shall not take vengeance, nor
bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your
neighbor as yourself: I [am] the LORD.”
So even Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5 is not really a new teaching,
but a clarifying of the original.
Actually this "eye for
eye" instruction appears in Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19 also. This might tend to reinforce that maiming
the guilty party was indeed a just penalty and indeed it appears in some
circumstances this may be so.
The context in Deuteronomy
19:21 is in regard to a false witness (vs. 18). If a false witness attempts to pervert
justice and thereby cause some harm to someone else, the false witness is to
receive the punishment he hoped to inflict on the other person. God seems to take the matter of a false
witness very seriously. "then you
shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put
away the evil from among you. 20. Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for
life, eye for eye…” (Deu 19:19, 20ab).
This potentially life-changing sentence is being levied on someone who
is willfully and with premeditation falsifying the truth in a court of
law. The default penalty for conduct
directly contrary to one of the Ten Commandments is really death. So from that perspective the guilty party
is getting off light.
The situation in Leviticus 24:20 also deserves more than just a surface
reading. Verse 17 states that whoever
kills a man should be put to death.
This is more or less repeating Exodus 21:12. However Exodus 21:13 allows that if there
was no premeditation involved there might be extenuating circumstances. In that case there was to be a trial to
determine guilt and the appropriate penalty, which may or may not be
death.
It is reasonable to assume some similar procedure would apply in any
other case where bodily harm was done.
It is only in the case where there was premeditated and malicious
intent that the full penalty was to be exacted (Ex 21:14). With this in mind all three of these
instances seem to be in accord.
Malicious intent is key to determining a just penalty.
Numerous
other verses in these judgments dictate the person in the wrong do what is
necessary to make the situation right.
(See Exodus 21:19, 30, 34, 36, 22:3, 12 & 14.) It appears he is to be anxious to correct
the situation. This conduct takes
faith that God will respect and help one who takes this approach in his
dealings with others. David knew that
this person would ultimately dwell with God, (see Ps 15:1) “He who swears
to his own hurt and does not change” (vs.:4).
This
mentality along with a desire to live in peace is undoubtedly why Paul came
to the conclusion in I Corinthians 6:7, that a true Christian would rather
take the wrong than go to court with a brother. If a Christian has done any wrong, he
should be anxious to make the situation right. Jesus reinforced this as well in Matthew
5:25. “Agree with your adversary
quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you
to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer and you be thrown into
prison.”
This
doesn’t mean you roll over and give in to anyone who brings an accusation
against you. In this account where
Jesus clarifies the meaning of “eye for eye” he gives an example of someone
slapping you and suggests you let him slap you on the other cheek also (Mat
5:39). However, when Jesus was struck
in John 18:22-3 He did not volunteer himself to be struck again. He spoke respectfully to his assailant and
clearly pointed out the error.
However, if Jesus had been in error, He would have bent over backwards
to make it right. Paul acted this way
in Acts 23:4-5. In any case, Jesus is
recommending against revenge and/or promotion of further contention or
antagonism.
This
particular judgment could bring up the matter of abortion although it really
doesn't directly deal with that. It
does deal with the possible death of an unborn child. It allows that if there is lasting harm the
judges have the option of giving 'life for life'. Indeed it appears they are required to
implement a severe penalty. It doesn't
differentiate between harm to the mother and harm to the child. It seems this possibility of 'life for
life' would make a death here the same penalty as a death in verses
12-14.
I
would assume that if the pregnancy was in the very early stages it is
possible they would not even recognize that there had been an abortion. They would have seen this as no permanent
harm.
The
father is involved in the decision when there is no permanent harm. It seems that his involvement is not so
integral when harm is permanent. That
would seem to indicate that the death of a significantly developed unborn
child would be a community matter, not a personal matter. There is no variation of penalty depending
on the term or trimester of the child’s development. That being the case it appears an abortion
would be a community issue, life for life.
Not
surprisingly judging a matter involves weighing all pertinent factors. Intent cannot be ignored. If it really comes to a choice between a
child and a mother, or a choice between two dead people or one, where is the
malicious intent?
Abortion
in a life-threatening situation is not the only type that might not justify a
harsh penalty. Galatians 4:1 tells us
that a child is no different from a slave, particularly in responsibility to
the father/master. Exodus 21:20-21
also indicates the master/father has the power of life and death over a
slave. He is not 100% free to do as he
will. Under some circumstances he must
answer to the judges, but the death of a slave is not likely considered
murder. Even so, the death or abortion
of a fetus approved by the father would not automatically be murder. The judges and law of the land would determine
the appropriate penalty.
This
judgment of Exodus 21:22-25 is based on the commandments to not murder and
steal. The penalty could be anything
that was judged from a monetary amount to death.
:26-27
Injury to a servant or slave
"And if a man strikes the eye of his
servant, or the eye of his maidservant, and destroys it, he shall let him go
free for the sake of his eye. 27. And if he knocks out his servants tooth, or
his maidservants tooth, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
Again
God makes it clear that servants are not to be treated carelessly. Even slaves are to be treated with
respect. As with the slave that was
freed in verse 3, any slave that was freed was to be given sufficient for
them to be able to survive until they could establish themselves. This exhortation is included in Deuteronomy
15:9 as part of the detail that was added to be a witness against anyone who
simply kicked the slave out with nothing.
Any employer should
consider this when dealing with employees.
Not that they can be set free, but that they should be respected
treated with concern. God obviously is
concerned about the safety of employees.
They are simply servants of a slightly different type. “And if one
of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you,
you shall not compel him to serve as a slave.
40 As a hired servant and a
sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of
Jubilee.” (Lev 25:39-40)
In
this case the owner actually inflicted the damage directly. However, in the following judgments we will
see that the penalty would be hardly less severe if an accident was involved.
Likely
this instruction is intended for Hebrew slaves not foreign slaves. Hebrew slaves were to be released at the
jubilee or after six years. Foreign
slaves could be inherited by children and serve for generations.
The
Hebrew word for free, chophshiy,
primarily means freedom from slavery, but also freedom from taxes or
debts. Typically a Hebrew slave was a
slave because he had incurred some debt.
Once the debt was worked off he would have been freed anyway.
This
penalty would evidently be levied based on the commandment to not steal,
since nothing else seems to fit. This
being the case, the master evidently owns only the slave’s labor or
productivity, not the slave in toto (see Lev 25:42). The master is responsible to free an
Israelite slave in similar condition as he was acquired, minus normal wear
and tear.
:28-36 Personal
responsibility and/or carelessness in accidents
"If an ox gores a man or a woman to
death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten:
but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted.
29. But if the ox tended to
thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner,
and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the
ox shall be stoned and its owner shall be put to death. 30. If there is imposed on him a sum of money,
then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. 31. Whether
it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall
be done to him. 32. If the ox gores a
manservant or a maid servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of
silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
Verses
33-36 detail circumstances that are easily comparable to the above. The bottom line is that we are responsible
for what we do and for what those under our control do. If the damage was truly an unforeseeable
accident, the one responsible was to make it as right as he could, as judged. If someone should have taken precautions,
but did not, that one is as responsible as if he inflicted the damage
directly.
How
different would our world be if accidents were handled this way? Would we not be extremely careful of our
neighbors all around? There was a case
in San Francisco in July of 2002 where a couple living in an apartment
building were keeping some very aggressive dogs. The neighbors complained, but the owners
did nothing. The dogs ended up killing
a woman who lived down the hall. The
owners had no regard for the safety of their neighbors. This is not what God expects of His people.
This
would apply to corporations as well as individuals. There would be no dumping of toxic waste.
Philip Morris would have discontinued the manufacture of cigarettes long
ago. There would probably be no second
opportunity for a drunk driver to kill.
This
may sound like big brother, but actually this is true freedom. Think of all the auto accident victims that
would have been able to live to their full age. The cancer victims that would have done the
same and the animals, vegetation, drinking water and finally people that
would not have been poisoned by corporate greed. Freedom is freedom for everyone, not just
those who are lucky enough to dodge harm’s way.
Whether
or not our civil laws hold us to this high standard, this is what God expects
of us. “Let each of you look out
not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.”
(Phil 2:4) This thought is also
summarized in I Corinthians 13:5b.
Love “does not seek its own”.
At
a very low level this matter would also include such assumedly minor things
such as littering and graffiti.
Cheaply made products would probably qualify as well. Litter and graffiti take away from what
could otherwise be a peaceful, pleasant landscape either public or
private. In some cases it actually
robs someone of their time or money to clean it up. Shoddy workmanship or cheaply made products
do the same when premature failure is the result and the job must be done
again or product replaced. It is this
thought that may have partially inspired the direction in the law of Moses to
put tassels on the corners of their garments.
The tying off of the corner of the garment reinforced the garment.
There
were different penalties depending on who was harmed and probably based on
how severe the damage was. Of course
the commandments that lead to this judgment would be commands against
stealing, murder and possibly coveting.
As
I remember this passage has been used to verify the authenticity of
scripture. Scholars have evidently
independently determined that thirty shekels was the price of a male slave at
about this time. Interestingly a
female slave cost 20 shekels.
This
completes the section involved mainly with bodily harm. Somewhat connected and following
immediately is the section on theft.
Theft section
22:1 Direct
theft
"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.
We
will see later that the normal penalty for a theft is to restore double. However, in the case of a disposed of ox or
sheep the penalty is significantly more.
The likely reason is that these animals provide more than just their
value as food. The ox would be a work
animal that helps a man earn his livelihood.
The sheep of course contributes wool for clothing and other
goods. Of course these are also clean,
edible animals. We could assume an
unclean working animal would not bring quite the penalty that an ox would,
but it would still be more than just double.
Also
if a man has lost a prized animal proving the exact value could be
difficult. Again God puts the
responsibility on the wrong doer to make it right. In this case in particular, the thief
probably acted quickly to eliminate any chance of detection. Such brazen conduct was to be rewarded in
kind.
Supposedly
if one was caught stealing a man’s horse in some areas and eras he could pay
with his life. This somewhat
illustrates the severity of the offense in God’s eyes. This severe penalty is
only implemented if the thief has somehow already disposed of the
animal. On the other hand, if a
person’s life actually depended on an animal, the horse thief example doesn’t
seem to be completely out of line.
Deuteronomy 19:16-18 instructs that someone who witnesses falsely
against someone shall have done to him what he intended to do to the one he
is accusing. If the intent of stealing
an animal is to cause death or could cause death, a stiffer penalty could
probably be levied based on the kidnapping judgment. Possibly Exodus 21:14 might apply whether
or not the intended victim actually died.
Of
course, this judgment comes directly from the command not to steal.
2-3a Right
of self-defense
"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.
People
have a right to defend their home and possessions. On the other hand in daylight it is
expected that a defender could more easily subdue an intruder with some care
so as not to inflict death. So
apparently a death during a daylight intrusion would be subject to an
investigation of some sort. If it
could be determined that the mortal wound was not justified under the
circumstances some penalty could be levied on the defender.
God
expects us to be careful even of someone who is trying to rob us.
3b-4 Penalty
for recovered theft
"He should make full restitution: if he
has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4. If
the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or a
donkey or sheep, he shall restore double.
The
standard penalty was to return the stolen animal and add another to it. This is consistent with the penalty for
false witness that we addressed earlier.
What he thought to do to his neighbor is done to him (Deu 19:16-18).
This
philosophy applies for good as well as bad.
“For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged: and with the
same measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Mat 7:2). Mark and Luke apply the same principle to
diligence in obedience, and mercy in judgment, condemnation, forgiveness and
generosity, (Mk 4:24, Luke 6:37-38).
Since we have seen this principle in multiple judgments and reaffirmed
in the New Testament it seems we can assume it is a fundamental way of our
Creator.
If
the thief had nothing with which to repay, he could be sold into
slavery. He obviously needs some help.
All
the ramifications of this could probably be turned into a thesis of its
own. The victim has some hope of being
compensated for his loss. The thief is
not locked away to become a drain on society.
He will not go from an amateur crook to a professional after being
placed into an environment where he has many pro’s to teach him. If he is unresponsive he will undoubtedly
be disciplined. Hopefully he will be
disciplined by someone who is reasonable, but in any case his fate will, to
some degree, be in his own hands. We
could expect that if he does well, he will be treated well. He has a future. He would be released after six years of service
and have a chance to start over.
Certainly
the criminal system in the United States is broken. We keep needing more and more prisons. Abuses and corruption within the system are
no surprise to anyone. We spend more
on inmates per day than we do to educate our children (See Education vs
Incarceration: A Mississippi case study, by Grassroots Leadership deemed
representative of most of the US, 2002).
Then again animals must be transported more carefully than petty
thieves.
A
system such as that recommended in Exodus would put someone having difficulty
providing for himself in an environment where he can be productive and he
will have his basic needs met. He will
get into the habit of honest work free from hunger and fear. It’s the stories of ungodly masters that
have soured us on slavery, not slavery itself.
:5-6 Accidents
"If a man causes a field or vineyard to
be grazed, and lets loose his animal, and it feeds in another man’s field, he
shall make restitution from the best of his own field and the best of his own
vineyard. 6. If fire breaks out and catches in thorns,
so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who
kindled the fire shall surely make restitution".
Again
personal responsibility is paramount.
The one responsible is to make it right. This requires diligence and continual
awareness and concern for those around us.
We cannot be careless.
Everything under our control is our responsibility.
:7-13
Guarding others goods
"If a man delivers to his neighbor
money or articles to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, if the
thief is found he shall pay double. 8. If the thief is not found, then the master
of the house shall be brought to the judges to see whether he has put his
hand into his neighbor’s goods. 9. For any kind of trespass, …. The cause of
both parties shall come before the judges: and whomever the judges condemn
shall pay double to his neighbor.
The
judgment goes on to prescribe the standard penalty, if the master is
determined to have taken any of the goods that he was keeping. He would be liable to pay double.
I
suppose this is a good reason not to provide storage for your neighbor. What is not said is that possibly rent or
maintenance of some sort might have been paid to the keeper (vs.15).
It
appears that if there is little reason to believe a thief came and took the
items alleged to be missing, then the owner of the house is liable to replace
them. On the other hand, it appears
that if the alleged items were not there in the first place, the keeper would
receive two of those from the false accuser.
Again
how you attempt to defraud your neighbor it shall be done to you. At least that was the intent of the
system. We have to assume that if
Israel had actually lived by this code then God would have given them the
discernment to nail the guilty party.
It
is interesting to note that ‘judges’ in verse 8 is actually the word ‘Elohim’
often used of God(s). Particularly in
Israel’s case the judges were supposed to be God’s representatives. A case could be made that the situation is
similar in all countries. “Jesus
answered, ‘you could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given
you from above’.” (John 19:11a).
It does not matter in which country we live. We should respect all constituted
authorities in all countries.
10. "If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey,
an ox, a sheep, or any beast to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away,
no one seeing it. 11. Then an oath of the Lord shall be between
them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods: and the
owner shall accept that, and he shall not make it good. 12. But
if in fact, it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to the owner of
it. 13. If it is torn to pieces by an animal, then
he shall bring it as evidence, and he shall not make good what was torn."
This
is very similar to the previous quote.
In this case it seems the two parties may avoid the adversarial
situation if the keeper of the animals claims with an “oath of the Lord” that
he did not take any goods. I would
assume this would amount to something like, “The Lord is my witness that I
did not ….”
Matthew
5:33-37 explains Jesus’ teaching toward oaths. In a nutshell He seems to be saying not to
speak an oath at all. “You shall
not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord” (Matt
5:33bc). Specifically this is
referring to Leviticus 19:12, “And you shall not swear by My name falsely”
and Deuteronomy 23:23 “That which is gone from your lips you shall keep
and perform, for you voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised
with your mouth”.
In
saying “…do not swear at all…” (Mat 5:34b), Jesus here is not
contradicting Exodus 22:11 where someone is strongly affirming the past, but
instructing concerning promises for the future. Particularly verse 36 alludes to the fact
that we can’t even promise and absolutely guarantee to be alive in two
minutes, let alone perform any other feat.
What you solemnly promise you certainly should perform as the Law of
Moses taught, but don’t involve other entities in the matter over which you
really have no control. If you fail to
perform you bring dishonor on others when you involve them.
Solomon
seems to be getting at this exact point in Ecclesiastes 5:5. “It is better not to vow than to vow and
not pay.”
Some
have interpreted Jesus’ words as forbidding swearing in a court of law. 'Swear' here is the Greek word 'omnuw'. The meaning in this context is 'to promise
with an oath'. This is apparent
because "shall perform your oaths" follows in typical Jewish
parallel form. Jesus is strongly
recommending against promising some future accomplishment while involving God
or some other important sounding thing.
A court of law is looking for facts regarding the past. One is to promise to tell the truth to the
best of their knowledge. This is
something anyone can do. I can't
imagine why it would be wrong to request God's help if someone felt that was
necessary.
The
promise with the oath that is being discouraged is a promise to accomplish
something that will take a certain amount of time and/or significant
effort. Numbers 14:28 is a good
example. Here God swears by his own
life. He can certainly bring about
what He determines to do. In Ruth 3:13
Boaz swore by God that he would redeem the possession his brother evidently
sold some years before. This is
probably an example of what Jesus is teaching against. Although Boaz did what he said he would do
and there was no real problem, he could have run into problems beyond his
control and failed. This would have
turned the situation into a double failure: one if he had not succeeded, the
second by breaking his promise to God.
Is
it always wrong to promise before God, or anything else, that some thing will
occur? God Himself seems to do it
rather frequently. I suppose if you
can speak with the same authority and ability to accomplish whatever you
promise, the Law of God will hold you guiltless. Why would you want to take the chance? Jesus seems to think the desire to do this
would come from Satan (Mat 5:27). I
would assume this to involve ego.
Verse
12 is a bit of a problem. It appears
that if the animal was stolen from the keeper, then the keeper would have to
supply the owner with a replacement.
It could also be interpreted as saying that if the keeper stole the
animal then the keeper would have to make restitution. In either case there appears to be an
inconsistency in judgment.
In
the first case, it really doesn’t make sense that the keeper was not
responsible if an animal destroyed the goods, but he was responsible if a
person stole the goods. Certainly
while in his care the keeper should care for the animals as if they were his
own. Why would he be more liable for
not protecting from a thief than for not protecting from a wild animal? Indeed the reference to being ‘driven away’
is likely a reference to being stolen.
In that case his word that he was not party to the disappearance was
sufficient. So verse 12 is not likely
intending that the keeper was liable for the animal if it was stolen from
him.
Of
course, if he stole the animal himself he is liable. However based on Exodus 22:4 he is not only
liable for restoring the animal, but he is responsible for restoring at least
double. This is probably not
specified, because the exact penalty can vary based on previous verses. In any case, I would think this
interpretation to be the most likely. The verse would then be read as, “But
if in fact, it be stolen from him (the owner), he (the keeper) shall make
restitution….”.
There
is also a remote possibility that this verse is referring to an oversight,
i.e. the item was temporarily misplaced.
Certainly if that could be determined the keeper would be
responsible. The temporary losing of
someone else’s property is explained further in Leviticus 6:2-7. In the process the keeper may have sworn
falsely, even though unintentionally.
Instead of restoring double, the keeper adds a value of one fifth of
whatever the misplaced items were to the original owner, but was also to
offer an appropriate offering to God.
All
sin is an offense against God. He is
the one that gives us the rules for appropriate conduct. If we ignore those rules, whether
intentionally or not, we have disrespected Him. Particularly if we claim to be His child
and claim to be conforming to His way, we take His name in vain and bring
dishonor on Him.
It
is interesting that Jacob seems to have known what was right and just in
these situations in spite of never having read Exodus 22:10-13. However, he did not necessarily expect some
situations to be handled according to these rules in some of his dealings
with Laban. In Genesis 31:39 Jacob
states that he absorbed the loss of torn (and stolen) animals instead of
bringing them to Laban. Evidently
Laban held Jacob responsible. This
illustrates the length that believers should go in making peace. Jacob trusted God would make it good. Although it took a while, that is certainly
what happened.
Since
few of us are ranchers, how would this apply to us? Perhaps it is more likely that some of us
do employ people in one form or another.
Perhaps in the course of that we entrust something to an employee or
hired hand. If it is stolen or damaged
we would likely be acting contrary to this judgment to require the employee
to replace the damaged item. If there
was gross negligence or it involved a contractor this might be
different. Contractors are supposed to
be highly experienced and fully capable of evaluating a situation and
avoiding unforeseen dangers and problems.
Even so, we should seriously consider how this judgment applies.
:14-15 Responsibility
for loaned or rented goods.
"And if a man borrows anything from his
neighbor, and it becomes injured or dies, the owner of it not being with it,
he shall surely make it good. 15. But if its owner was with it, he shall not
make it good: if it was hired, it came for its hire.
Certainly
this is reasonable. If something is
rented we assume it has had some wear.
It is probably not in perfect condition and who knows how much life is
left in it. Things break, but over the
life of the rental object its owner should be able to recoup the value of the
item.
If
the owner is there, we have to assume that the item was not being
abused. Therefore it has simply
reached the natural end of its life and the borrower is not responsible to
provide a fully functioning replacement in return.
However,
if someone loans something out we assume it is healthy and fully functioning,
requiring no special supervision. This
is intended to be at no cost to the borrower.
If that item breaks or dies, the borrower has a responsibility to make
it good. This may not require fully
replacing the item, but whatever is in good faith, depending on the
circumstances. With mechanical things
it would probably mean having it repaired.
When
the owner lent the item out, he took a certain risk that it might not come
back in the same condition in which it went out. Indeed there would certainly be some wear
involved. The borrower takes the risk
that something may go wrong, factored against the fact that he may get the
use for free. In a rental arrangement
the price is decided up front. When
borrowing is done the price is decided on the back side.
Based
on the judgment of Exodus 21:22, the owner/master of the item would have a
major say in what was fair. The
borrower should be willing to pay whatever restores the item and/or satisfies
the owner.
:16-17 Spur
of moment sex
"And if a man entices a virgin who is
not bethrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for
her to be his wife. 17. If her father utterly refuses to give her
to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.
There
is no such thing as sex before marriage.
Sexual intercourse between a man and a virgin makes the woman a
wife. The man may or may not end up
with a wife in his house, but he must acknowledge her to be his wife. In ancient Israel this amounted to paying
the full price of a virgin. Again,
God’s way requires taking full responsibility for our actions. The man took the woman’s virginity without
permission or adhering to the norms of society. Therefore he has lost any option to
negotiate.
There
is no concern here as to whether or not the man is married. It made no difference. However, “If he takes another wife, he
shall not diminish her (first wife) food, her clothing, and her marriage
rights” (Ex 21:10). The living
standard of the first wife was not to be diminished if the man took a second
wife.
If
the father refused to let his daughter go with the man, this evidently had no
bearing on their relationship as husband and wife. He still had to pay the price. There was no provision for what we know as
divorce until almost forty years later.
It was allowed if the wife had been unfaithful. (See Deu 24:1, Num
5:28-9 There is also an article available on divorce and remarriage that
deals directly with this issue, should you wish to pursue it.) According to David Instone-Brewer,
"The divorce certificate, which gave women the right to remarry, was
unknown elsewhere in the ancient near east." (Divorce and Remarriage
in the Bible, Ch 2 p. 20 Eerdmanns Publishers, 2002)
He
goes on to say, “There were few cases where a woman could remarry without
being properly divorced or widowed, or without having been properly married”
(p.125). In this case Mr. Brewer is
probably aware of none, since he doesn’t describe any at all. So even after divorce was allowed, the
woman whose father refused to relinquish her had little chance of being
remarried.
Of
course, if the woman were betrothed she was considered married. That would cause the matter to fall under
adultery, which, of course, was directly forbidden in the seventh
commandment. Handling this is detailed
in Deuteronomy 22:23-30. In summary,
the man would be executed. The woman
would be evaluated as to whether or not she was complicit or simply a victim
in the affair.
This
instruction probably seems to us somewhat out of place in the theft section
of judgments. For ancient Israel this
was apparently not the case. The man
involved had taken a wife without the father’s permission. It was theft. If the woman were betrothed, the man had
hijacked someone's wife, also a type of theft.
This
marks the end of the theft section and the beginning of the section dealing
with direct respect to God.
:18 Sorceress
"You shall not permit a sorceress to
live.
Anyone
who seeks contact with spirits other than God is obviously disrespecting
God. For some reason women seem more
inclined to deal with spirits than men.
Perhaps it is because of an emotional attraction or perhaps it is
because it provides a means of self-support financially. The Law later clarified that a sorcerer is
to be eliminated as well. (Deu 18:9-13)
This
illustrates an important aspect about the nature of this instruction. It is not intended as a detailed list of
what is permitted and what is not. It
is a sample list of infractions, which illustrate the mind of God. The reader is expected to apply reasonable
logic to the samples given and understand the principle involved. The
principle is then applied to similar situations. In this case it should be apparent that a
sorcerer is just as much a problem as a sorceress.
Not
only do those involving themselves in this activity put another God before
the true God, they are typically involved in a false witness. The spirits that would respond to humans in
this way are not the ones that would tell the whole truth.
The
penalty for being a sorceress was death.
:19 Sex
with animals
"Whoever lies with a beast shall surely
be put to death.
At
first reading this particular judgment seems out of place. However, according to the Jamieson
commentary sex with animals was a religious rite in Egypt (See JFB on Ex
22:19). Evidently people in Canaan
practiced this too (Lev 18:23-24).
It
is of note that chapter 18 of Leviticus mentions all sorts of sexual
practices that are abominable in God's eyes.
Early on (vs 3) in this chapter God brings out that what was done in
Egypt and Canaan is not to be done.
This judgment regarding sex with animals is probably intended to
summarize all the despicable practices of the pagans in this one particularly
revolting example of their conduct.
The
context in Leviticus 18 & 20 revolves around honor to God. If we want to honor Him and keep ourselves
holy we don’t mix our flesh with animals or inappropriate humans. Leviticus 18:20 gives the definition
typically attached to adultery, but all of these inappropriate sexual
relationships adulterate the flesh.
These regulations have to do with who God is, i.e. His character. Even if there were no specific command against
adultery, if one wants to honor God one does not defile himself with another
man’s wife. In like manner the godly
wife is faithful to her husband.
Perhaps
the lesson we should learn is that believers are faithful to the Creator
alone, seven days a week, 365 days per year.
When we walk contrary to God and sin we are defiling ourselves with
other gods. Sin typically involves
putting something above the Creator.
Connecting with this thing defiles just as connecting in sex
defiles. Harkening back to the
instruction on the children of slaves, as the servant of the Creator,
everything we do is a reflection on Him (Ex 21:4). He intended us to be content with our own
appropriate mate, not another kind and not someone else’s.
God
is a God of mercy and patience (Ex 34:6).
He expects us to be merciful and patient (Luke 6:37-38). He is the God that rested on and then
sanctified the Seventh day (Gen 2:2-3), so He expects us to rest on the
seventh day (Ex 20:8). He expects us
to be holy like he is holy (Ex 22:31, Lev 19:2, I Pet 1:16). It seems that
what is most emphasized in Leviticus 18, 19 and 20 is that God is who He is
and if you want Him as your God, He expects you to live to His standard. Anything else is having some other God
before Him.
This
includes physical things as well as mental and spiritual. He commanded Israel to physically clean
themselves up before the meeting at Sinai (Ex 19:10). He doesn’t want to see pollution or
sloppiness in the camp (Deu 23:14).
Even the food we consume can taint us in His eyes (Lev 11:42-44). The sacrifice of Jesus Christ didn’t remove
the need to be clean, prevent pollution and filth or to eat only what God
intended should be eaten.
God
is still concerned about these things as well as spiritual things. “… present your bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1cd). “Do you not know that you are the temple
of God and that the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God
will destroy him. For the temple of
God is holy, which temple you are” (I Cor 3:16-17). Clearly this is referring to physical care
we take of our bodies as much as mental and spiritual care. “For you were bought at a price;
therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
(1 Cor 6:20)
So
while sexual union with animals certainly would seem to adulterate, this
prohibition seems most apropos to this section honoring God and none
other. The penalty for disobedience is
death. I Corinthians 3:17 affirms the
fact that nothing has changed here with the New Testament.
:20 Sacrifice
to other god
"He who sacrifices to any god,
except the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
This
seems fairly straightforward. God is a
jealous God (Ex 20:5b). Paul may be
applying this judgment to those who teach any other gospel than what he was
teaching. “… let him be anathema”
(i.e. a person or thing doomed to destruction; Thayer’s, Gal 1:8c, 9). It makes sense that teaching others to
worship other gods would be worse than simply worshiping them oneself.
It
seems that this ought to make us think very seriously about what we consider
important. Many religious people seem
to get very excited and adamant about some rather detailed and twiggy
matters. Some of these have little
bearing on justice, mercy or faith (Mat 23:23). Those who take it upon themselves to
instruct others lay themselves open to greater condemnation (Jam 3:1) and
Paul’s curse (Gal 1:8-9). The wise
course is to consider carefully what anyone says and choose our own words
carefully (Jam 1:19). How many things
have been held to be absolutely true only to be found false later?
Obviously God
can forgive what is done in ignorance.
However, why should we misspeak, offering what is considered the
sacrifice of fools (Ecc. 5:1)? If we
claim to know and are wrong, our sin remains.
If we acknowledge that we are not sure and conduct ourselves
accordingly (“…for whatever is not from faith is sin.” Rom 14:23c), we
have no sin. (John 9:41)
Just
because we pronounce the name of Jesus doesn’t mean we are doing his work
(Mat 24:5). Many who think they are
doing Jesus’ work, teaching in His name, are working havoc and encouraging
lawlessness (John 7:23). Honoring
other gods brings death.
*:21-27 Fair treatment of disadvantaged
"You shall neither mistreat a stranger
nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 22. You
shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. 23. If
you afflict them in any way, and they cry out to Me, I will surely hear their
cry: 24. And My wrath will become hot, and I will
kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children
fatherless.
Of
all the explanations we might give of what it means to honor God I can think
of none more appropriate or fear-inducing than these verses. Our God takes the plight of the
disadvantaged VERY personally.
Let there be no doubt!
Every
other matter in these judgments is left to the Israelites themselves but
mistreatment of the poor (see also verse 27).
Improper treatment of the disadvantaged God will weigh and exact a
penalty Himself. “And I will come
near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers,
and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those
that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and
that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD
of hosts” (Mal 3:5). Of course we
should respect and treat everyone as a brother or sister, but with those who
have no one to support them we should take special care. Not doing this is a clear indication that
we don’t really fear God. We are
hypocrites. We think neither He nor
anyone else will see, so we can get away with it.
The
real intent of this judgment is more clear in Leviticus 19:9-14. We are to help and support the
under-privileged. The Israelites were
to leave the corners of their fields and the gleanings and deal in an honest
and straightforward way, not taking advantage. Perhaps we should translate that into
providing employment when we can and paying a generous wage. Pay promptly as agreed or when the job is
done. Fairness and honesty in all
dealings should go without saying.
Jesus
Christ also addressed this subject frequently. “Then shall the righteous answer him,
saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave
thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a
stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and
came unto thee? 40 And the King shall
answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it
unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Mat
25:37-40).
“But
when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. 14.
And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you: for you shall
be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:13-14).
‘So
when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one
thing. Sell all that you have and
distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven: and come and
follow Me.”’ (Luke 18:22)
Of course the teaching didn’t stop with Jesus’
death: “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need,
and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of
God in him?” (I John 3:17).
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To
visit (help) the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world” (Jas 1:27).
Even
before Moses, Job knew God would be aware of any wrong in this area. “If I have kept the poor from their
desire, Or caused the eyes of the widow to fail, 17. Or eaten my morsel by myself, So that the
fatherless may not eat of it. 18. (But from my youth I reared him as a
father, And from my mothers womb I guided the widow); 19.
If I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing, Or any poor man
without covering; 20. If his heart has not blessed me, And if he
was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep;
21. If I have raised my hand
against the fatherless, When I saw I had help in the gate; 22.
Then let my arm fall from my shoulder, Let my arm be torn from the
socket.” (Job 31:16-22)
This
is the special category in which an abandoned wife could easily find herself
(see Ex 21:11). If she cries to God,
her husband’s new wife could easily find herself a widow.
There
are cautions to consider in giving.
“You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you
may spend it on your pleasures…6 But
He gives more grace. Therefore He says: "God resists the proud, But
gives grace to the humble." (Jam 4: 3, 6) The Creator does not always give to those
that ask. If we are to be like our Father
we need to carefully consider His approach.
"But I say to you,
love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you,
and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 "that
you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the
evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46
"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do
not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 "And if you greet
your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax
collectors do so? 48 "Therefore you shall be perfect,
just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
1 ¶ "Take heed
that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your
Father in heaven.” (Mat 5:44 – 6:1)
There
is no point in letting other people know when you give. Also, the Creator is concerned that
peoples’ necessities are provided, not necessarily their latest whim. He provides the basic necessities for
all. Everyone is due a certain minimum
respect.
We
should not pass by the reference to Israel being strangers in Egypt. This is repeated in Exodus 23:9 and
Leviticus 19:34 & 25:38. If we
think about this for just a moment it is apparent that the purpose for
bringing this up is to remind Israel how it felt to be strangers in someone
else’s land. It undoubtedly wasn’t as
pleasant as it should have been. It
seems apparent that God did not want the stranger in Israel to be mistreated
the way Israel had been.
We
still hear the ‘golden rule’ quoted occasionally. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law
and the prophets” (Mt 7:12). “And
as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”
(.Luke 6:31). What isn’t noticed is
that this rule originates in the law of God.
Specifically it ought to be clear that it is firmly rooted in this
judgment. God reminded them of their
situation in Egypt to get them to put themselves in the other person's shoes
and treat them as they would have wished to be treated when they were in
Egypt. Although phrased more clearly,
the concept behind Jesus’ statement came straight from this judgment.
A
directly associated principle involved here is that as we do to others, so
shall it be done to us. We dealt with
this from the perspective of punishment before, but it applies on the
positive side as well. “Blessed are
the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” (Mat 5:7) “36.
Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. 37.
Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be
condemned. Forgive, and you will be
forgiven. 38. Give, and it will be
given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over
will be put into your bosom. For with
the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you” (Luke
6:36-38).
Besides
direct disrespect and light regard for God, those who mistreat others are
stealing at least their self-respect.
They also disrespect their own parents because they reflect poorly on
them. God will have no respect toward
these people.
:25
Loans between Israelites
"If you lend any money to any of My
people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him;
you shall not charge him interest.
When
one can earn interest in a savings account this seems like a rather foolish
policy. However, Jesus reinforced
this. “Give to him who asks you,
and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” (Mat
5:42)
The
assumption seems to be that anyone who borrows is poor. Of course, they are the least likely to be
able to repay. This is at least one
aspect of the kind of faith that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 23:23. Many seem to think faith was not required
of the general population in Old Testament times. This is not at all the case.
On
numerous occasions (Ex 32:7-10, Num 14:11-12, Josh 7:1) God tried to make the
point that Israel was a unit and family.
They were to work together so everyone would have sufficient. This was incompatible with trying to make
money off someone who was having difficulty.
“You shall not charge interest to your brother- interest on money
or food or anything that is lent out at interest” (Deu. 23:19). However they could charge interest to a
foreigner, but it should be assumed it was interest at a reasonable rate.
(vs.20)
More
than likely a long-term resident foreigner would be considered as one born in
the land as far as interest was concerned.
“The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born
among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the
land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (Le 19:34)
Instruction
on loans to the poor appears in Leviticus 25:35-37. In verse 38 God reminds Israel of who He
is, the God that brought them out of Egypt to give them Canaan. They didn’t work for the land of Canaan. It was given to them. How then could they withhold from someone
in need when they owed their safety and comfortable living to God? If they wanted this God to be their God,
they needed to be kind, helpful and merciful to the poor, Israelite or not.
26-27
Settling agreements and paying of wages
"If you ever take your neighbor’s
garment in a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes
down. 27. For that is his only covering, it is his
garment for his skin. What will he
sleep in? And it will be that when he
cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.
Although
this doesn’t seem to mention anything about payment of wages the only
plausible explanation of this thought I have come across involves manual
labor. Particularly labor in the
fields. This is work the poor will
typically take. But why would it
involve taking one’s garment in pledge, i.e. as collateral?
Someone
working in the fields and harvesting crops would possibly be in a position to
pilfer what he had harvested and sell it.
It appears that a landowner would take a man’s garment and hold it as
collateral while the harvesting was being done. This would provide some assurance that the
man wouldn’t fill his pockets or wander too far off. It would also extend the life of the
garment, since it wouldn’t be stained with prodigious amounts of sweat. At the end of the day the landowner was to
return the garment with the day’s wages.
Yes,
as strange as it might seem to us, the man was likely naked during this
time. Many works of art from ancient
times show exactly that. We think they
were just taking artistic license. In
fact they are more likely depicting laborers exactly as they appeared. As is indicated by these verses, poor
people didn’t have a whole closet full of clothes. What little they had would have quickly
been in tatters if they had worn it while engaged in heavy manual labor. It was not the custom to wear underwear in
those times.
This
is likely the basis for Mark 13:16.
"And let him who is in the field not go back to get his
clothes."
There
are a few other places where pledges are mentioned, especially in Deuteronomy
24. Verse 12 again talks of returning
a man’s pledge before evening. It
makes little sense to take a pledge that must be returned that evening unless
the reason for the pledge would be fulfilled that day.
Of
course, in the New Testament there are references to clothing the naked. It seems unlikely this would be said if no
one was naked. Not that everyone
should rush to the fields to cover the workers, but certainly if someone had
sunk to the point that their garment was worthless or next to worthless they
should be helped. (Mat 25:44-45, Jam 2:15)
Again
God reinforces that He will involve himself in the function of protecting the
poor. These verses are simply a
continuation of verses 21-24. Blatant
disregard is likely to result in death for the offender. One doesn’t fear God if one is not merciful
to the poor.
:28 Respect
to God and rulers
"You shall not revile God, nor curse a
ruler of your people.
“Let
every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of
God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom 13:1, see also I Pet
2:13-14). “Then saith Pilate
unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to
crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that
delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19:10). When we respect our rulers and civic
leaders we are respecting God. He
reserves the right to set them up and take them down. If they are in power, it is because He has
allowed it.
Leviticus
19:32 clarifies God's true desire. We
are to "rise before the gray headed and honor the presence of an old
man". This illustrates again
the spirit of God's instruction. Often
the Sinai covenant was worded to a minimum standard. The real desire was that Israel would
actively do the positive, not just refrain from the negative.
The
problem is probably often that we do not see the long-term effect or
underlying causes why a leader is where he is. “Yet justice is before Him, and you must
wait for Him” (Job 35:14b). God
gives rulers authority to further His cause.
That cause may be to show a nation that they have fallen short or to
illustrate the end result of their own actions. (Mat 21:43, Rom. 10:19)
From
the time God brought Israel out of Egypt, He worked with them as a unit. Moses as the leader received the brunt of
the criticism when others neglected to properly note the Sabbath in Exodus
16. God was looking to destroy the
whole nation when only a percentage actually worshiped the golden calf (Ex
32:10). Achan, only one man, disobeyed
the instruction regarding the handling of booty. Joshua 7:1 says the children of Israel
committed a trespass.
The
bottom line is: we are all on this earth together. We must help and support one another. If we don’t, our rulers will reflect our
sin and we will be oppressed ourselves.
As we do unto others so shall it be done to us.
:29-30 Tithes
& Firstborn are God's
"You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe
produce and your juices. The firstborn
of your sons you shall give to Me.
Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on
the eighth day you shall give it to me.
I’d like to quote from the
New Living Translation, "Do not hold anything back when you give me
the tithe of your crops and your wine.
You must make the necessary payment for redemption of your firstborn
sons.” How is ‘tithe’ justified
here? The word typically used for
tithe does not appear in these verses.
The word in question here
is m’lehah, Strong’s 4395. The
primary meaning is ‘fullness’ and evidently usually refers to a whole or the
complete thing. In the NKJV it is
translated 'first of your ripe produce' evidently because the translators
didn't feel God really intended that all Israel's produce was intended in
this verse.
M’lehah is used in Deuteronomy 22:9, which instructs us to
not mix different kinds of seeds, i.e. grapes or herbs and wheat. One possible reason for this prohibition is
that the crops would be difficult to harvest without damage.
The
only other use in the Bible is in Numbers 18:27. “And your heave offering shall be
reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor and as the
fullness of the winepress.” This
is talking of the heave offering that the Levites gave to the priests, the
sons of Aaron (vs 26, 28). This heave
offering was a tenth of the tithe (singular in the Hebrew) that Levi received
from Israel for their service in the Tabernacle (Num. 18:21). Levi gave a tenth of what they received
from Israel to Aaron’s sons, the priests.
This
heave offering of a tenth of the tithe was accounted to Levi “as
though it were the grain of the threshing floor and as the fullness of the
winepress”. In other words, it was
the Levites’ equivalent of the 'fullness of the produce and liquors'
that was required of all Israel in Exodus 22:29. So instead of Levi bringing in the fullness
of their crops, they paid a tenth of Israel’s tithe to Aaron’s sons. This was accepted as their fullness. (Remember, Levi was short-changed in land
and they were not in a position to be self-sufficient.)
It
makes sense that God did not intend Israel to give their entire crop to Him,
but the same fullness required of Levi, a tenth. That was considered their fullness for
God’s purposes.
The
first mention of tithing apart from this, after the Exodus, is in Leviticus
27:30. “And all the tithe of the
land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the
Lord’s. It is holy to the Lord.” Considering the personal effect this is
going to have on everyone, it seems a rather curt statement. It seems to assume they knew a tithe would
be collected. This just clarifies some
of what it included and what would happen to it. This is not completely out of the question,
because a number of historical sources indicate that it was normal that the
ruler of a nation would collect a tithe from the people of the land. “Esretu” is
the word for tithe from the ancient Akkadian language spoken in the region
where Abraham grew up. Tithing was not
a new concept with Israel in the wilderness.
God also warned Israel when they requested a king that the new king
would expect a tithe (I Sam 8:15).
Since
Exodus 22:29 is apparently telling Israel that they will be required to pay
up to their King, the wording in Leviticus 27 should have been no shock at
all. It simply reinforced and
clarified what was intended in Exodus 22.
They already knew that a tithe was to be collected.
Just
because God gave His tenth to the Levites doesn’t mean He is no longer
concerned about it. “Will a man rob
God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed
You?’ In tithes and offerings.” (Mal 3:8). There does not seem to be any indication
that tithing is no longer necessary.
Of course Matthew 23:23 indicates it is of secondary importance, but
should not be ignored. Hebrews 7:5
indicates that as of that time the sons of Levi “have a commandment to
receive tithes from the people according to the law”. Lacking some other direction it is still
“Holy to the Lord” (Lev 27:30). Jesus
reinforced that we are to “render to God the things that are God’s”. (Mat 22:21). Specifically in this context money is the
center of the discussion, although what is God’s is not necessarily
exclusively money.
God
also required the first-born. God
apparently expects prompt payment and/or to be paid first. This is reflected in Exodus 22:29, “you
shall not delay”. The first tenth
is God’s and we keep the next nine. If
we wish to truly honor God we need to keep this in mind.
Exactly
how one gives God His tithe is another study.
A document for your consideration is available. This seems to be a matter of some
controversy.
Originally
it appears God intended to use the firstborn males of Israel in His service
(Ex 13:1-2, Num 3:12-13). These would
tend to be the leaders of the various families. Assuming they were zealous for their God,
this would have made the hereditary leaders the spiritual leaders as
well. It would have been a powerful
force for good. Unfortunately it was
not to be.
Disregarding
this instruction would violate the commandment against theft and honoring
one’s parents as well as putting something before God.
:31 Don't
eat animal kill (Be holy)
"And you shall be holy men to Me: you shall not eat
any meat which is torn by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the
dogs.
How
does one “be holy”? In this verse God
connects being holy with not eating meat that has been killed by an animal
even if it is otherwise fit to eat.
That seems simple enough. Most
people in the western world would certainly qualify as holy if that is the
only criterion. We might ask if that
is all that is necessary.
Leviticus
11:44 probably has something to do with this too. “For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore sanctify yourselves,
and you shall be holy; for I am holy.
Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps
on the earth.” This whole chapter
is given to the discussion of what is appropriate to eat and what is
not. Towards the conclusion God makes
clear an integral part of being holy is to stay away from eating these
creeping things. Certainly the other ‘unclean’
animals defile as well.
Leviticus
11:44 also includes mention of sanctifying one’s self. If we avoid these foods might we still need
to be sanctified? “Then the Lord
said to Moses, Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let
them wash their clothes.” (Ex 19:10)
We should not only try to eat ‘clean’ food, but also keep our bodies
clean. Cleanliness is next to
Godliness.
“What?
know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,
which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore
glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (I Cor
6:19-20). It is apparent that God was
concerned with how ancient Israel cared for their bodies. The New Testament instruction is no less
concerned.
“Her
priests have violated My law, and profaned My holy things: they have not
distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the
difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have hidden their eyes
from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.” (Eze 22:26) What is it called when we claim God’s
authority for something, which He doesn’t authorize? It is taking the name of God in vain or
profaning God’s name. Evidently this
applies to ignoring God’s direction in matters of clean and unclean as much
as to the observance of the Sabbath.
Actually,
this connection with profaning the name of God and claiming God’s authority,
for something for which He gives no authority, ought to give us long pause
for thought. If we claim to represent
God, but our actions run contrary to what Christ stands for, we are taking
God’s name in vain. Anyone saying they
are of Christ ought to understand they are saying they represent Christ.
“Know
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you? 17 If any man defile the temple
of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye
are” (I Cor 3:16). This sounds
pretty serious.
Our
Creator obviously wants us to take good care of our bodies. The designation of clean and unclean food
is undoubtedly a part of this. Are
unclean items the only food that is bad for our health? In fact it should be general knowledge that
soft drinks, heavily processed foods, milled grains and even many lightly
processed foods are in the long term detrimental to good health. These items were not designated unclean,
simply because they didn’t exist, not because they are approved.
“For
you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you
to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples of the
face of the earth” (Deu 7:6). If
this applied to ancient Israel, how much more to the believing congregation
of God who have not only the instruction of the Hebrew scriptures, but also
the instruction and selfless example of Jesus Christ? “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by
the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Rom 12:1) Not only should our minds be dedicated to
representing our Creator, but our bodies should be cared for just as
carefully. This would apply to
anything that might pose a serious threat.
If we think back to Exodus 21:33, we are to be careful to prevent harm
to anyone by accident. Certainly this
applies to ourselves as well. In doing
this we honor God as well as preserve ourselves.
Part
of having no other gods is to properly represent Him and not to misrepresent
Him. What we eat is one aspect of
being holy (see also I Cor 7:34, 6:20).
23:1-3 Speak
truthfully & justly
"You shall not circulate a false
report. Do not put your hand with the
wicked to be an unrighteous witness. 2. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil;
nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert
justice. 3. You shall not show partiality to a poor man
in his dispute.
We’ve
all played the game where someone says something to his neighbor and it is
relayed around a circle until it gets back to the original teller. When I’ve seen this done what comes back has
never even been close to what started out.
As mundane as this instruction may seem, God is obviously concerned
about it. Even if something seems
harmless why should we “put our hand with the wicked”, involve
ourselves in something wherein we have no knowledge? “And besides they learn to be idle,
wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but gossips and
busybodies, saying things which they ought not.” (1 Tim 5:13, see also
2Thes 3:11, 1Pet 4:15).
This
instruction also warns about going along with popular opinion or with the
crowd. Just because many people
believe a certain way, does not mean that belief is the right way. Each situation must be weighed on its own
merits, not public opinion. The word
of God is the guide, not any human.
Interestingly
enough ‘crowd’ is Hebrew ‘rav’ and could also be interpreted as
referring to the leaders or rulers. (see Job 32:9, Gen 25:23, Est 1:8) “I was just following orders,” is not a
completely acceptable excuse. A
conflict between the law of God and the directives of superiors must be
considered very carefully. A master is
responsible for the actions of a slave (Ex 21:4) and rulers for their
subjects (Neh 13:17). That doesn’t
mean individuals need not consider what is right and act appropriately (Neh
13:15-17, Ex 1:17-21)
Even
though God is very protective of the poor, He does not want justice perverted
for their benefit. Justice is not to
be perverted for anyone. Jesus gave us
more direction on how this could be done.
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the
Father which hath sent me.” (John 5:30)
We are not to be concerned about how we will look, gain or lose in the
course of judging. (see also Lev
19:15)
Paul
added a bit too. “For a bishop must
be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not
given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good
men, sober, just, holy, temperate” (Titus 1:7-8)
Luke
calls the resurrection of the righteous, the resurrection of the just (ch
14:14, cf Acts 24:15). Evidently if we
don’t get this aspect down we will be in some other resurrection, i.e. the
unjust. God’s very nature and being
are categorized as just and true (Rev 15:3).
One who allows public opinion, the leadership, self-interest, or
prejudice to sway his judgment is doing his own work, not the work of God. Justice is the first weighty matter of the
law according to Jesus’ reckoning (Mat 23:23).
Part of justice is how we
do business on a daily basis. “You
shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement, of length, weight, or
volume. 36 You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a
just hin: I [am] the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”
(Lev 19:36) This practice especially
applies to the treatment of the poor.
Everything is to be done with an even hand.
Being
a party to injustice constitutes a false witness, profaning of Gods name and
indicates one is worshiping some other God than the true God. When this is ignored some just person is
probably robbed. Anyone who truly
fears God will be careful not to do this.
:4-5 Care for
other’s property (even an enemy’s)
"If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going
astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. 5.
If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and
you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it.
Well-respected
scholars have said that Jesus’ instruction to love your enemy was
revolutionary for his day (See: Jesus’ Jewish Command to Love. By R.
Steven Notley, Jerusalem Perspective).
Why should it have been?
Clearly this was the intent of God’s instruction while ancient Israel
was camped at Sinai. Leviticus 19:34
further clarifies that we are to love even the 'stranger'. The intent is everyone.
Obviously,
if your neighbor doesn’t have a donkey, but has some other animal this
instruction could still be followed.
For that matter if their car is straining under its’ burden you might
be able to help as well. This doesn’t
mean you put yourself in harms way for any reason at all, but we should be of
service to those in need whenever possible because we represent the God of
justice, mercy and faith.
“But
I say unto you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to
those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you, and persecute
you, 45. That you may be the sons of
your Father in heaven: for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the
good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Mat 5:44-45).
This
is the character of the God we claim to honor. He is looking for those who think like He
thinks and act like He acts. We are
the offspring of those we emulate (John 8:39, 41, 44, Rom 6:16). The question is simply, are we representing
our Creator, or ourselves?
This
is not an easy task. It takes faith
that God will make up any loss we might incur. We need to understand this may not
necessarily happen in this life, but it will happen. This is nothing more than God asked of
ancient Israel. Certainly God asked
faith of them too (Mat 23:23, Hab 2:4) as is obvious if one thinks about what
this judgment instructs.
The
concept of being the children of God is not a New Testament invention. “So you should know in your heart
that as a man chastens his son, so the LORD your God chastens you. Therefore
you shall keep the commandments of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways,
and to fear Him” (Deu. 8:5-6). In
a bit of a circle we come back to the fact that the ways of God, the essence
of His being and how He conducts Himself, He defines as keeping the
commandments. This includes, of
course, as they are expanded or more fully explained by these judgments.
“But do not forget to do
good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” (Heb
13:16) We are to be a positive
influence on this world. God created
the world for all of us. Just as we
would want our own children to support one another, so God expects us to
support one another regardless of ideology.
“And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than
others? Do not even the tax collectors
do so?” (Mat 5:47)
If we ignore this
instruction we are not only placing ourselves above God, but stealing due
respect and help from our brothers and sisters. I don't think I can overemphasize the
importance of understanding the precept that our Creator is wishing to
communicate in this judgment. It also
ties in with every other judgment that deals with relations between people or
our conduct involving others.
We are to care for our
neighbor, even our enemy. We do this
not because we want to or because it's easy, but because God tells us it is
His way and that He wants us to do it.
We let go of our own way to walk in His way. This is how to lose our own life and be a
living sacrifice (Rom 12:1, Mat 16:25).
He will make up for whatever loss we feel we incur (see Isa 58).
:6-9 Judge
justly for poor, innocent, righteous, strangers; no bribes
"You shall not pervert the judgment of your poor in
his dispute. 7. Keep yourself far from a false matter; do
not kill the innocent and righteous.
For I will not justify the wicked.
8. And you shall take no bribe,
for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous. 9. Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for
you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of
Egypt.
The
importance of unfailing justice is certainly reinforced in these verses. There is hardly any difference in intent
with verses 1-3. This appears to be
making sure we don’t lump people together, but discern between the guilty and
innocent. Not doing so will place the
judge in with the wicked that he seeks to punish. Judges are to hear and fear too.
Here
also God repeats the thought that Israel was a stranger in Egypt, expressed
in Exodus 22:21. Certainly this was
intended to impress upon them and us the importance God places on justice and
treating everyone with kindness, concern and compassion. In short, treating them the way we would
want to be treated. There is no
different standard of measurement for an outsider (Lev 24:22).
One
new aspect dealt with here is the condemning of bribes. Of course this ought to have been
understood, but it is stated anyway.
Some things we can still see apart from the law of God some 3500 years
later. Other things have been lost on
us even though they were taken for granted by Israel.
The
commandments on which these verses are based are the same as verses 1-3. However the inclusion of the instruction on
bribes brings to light that covetousness is a factor as well. We accept a bribe because we want something
quick and easy that God has not yet chosen to give us.
Bribes
come in many forms. In some cases no
direct goods or services may change hands.
One can simply be influenced by flattery or possibly some personal
relationship. We should have our guard
up against this kind of influence as well as monetary. Nothing should 'blind the discerning or
pervert the words of the righteous'.
Beginning of possible inset section focusing on Sabbaths
:10-11 Land
Sabbath
"Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its
produce, 11. But the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that
the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave, the beasts of the field
may eat. In like manner you shall do
with your vineyard and your olive grove.
The
sabbatical year is a fundamental principle of the law of God. Since so many of us are so far removed from
the land we may be at a loss as to how to implement this instruction. I will readily admit to being in that
position. This is no excuse to ignore it.
Certainly
part of the purpose for this is to help feed the poor. Produce will still be produced. One is not to sow crops, but let whatever
will grow, grow. Everyone was
permitted to eat, but there was not to be a harvest, as such. (Lev 25:1-6).
. In modern society most people
wouldn’t understand how the sabbatical year or other customs implemented by
God were supposed to work. So few
would take advantage of what produce was available. Also they would probably come back the
next year and expect to help themselves again.
There
are many other customs mentioned in the Law of Moses that would go hand in
hand with this custom. Even during a
non-sabbatical year it is permissible for anyone walking by to help
themselves to a little food. They are
to take only what they will immediately eat (Deu 23:24-25). Nothing is to be carried away for later.
Of
course gleaning was another matter. In
that case, after a crop had been harvested, or the harvesters had bypassed
the ‘corners’ of the field, the poor could come and collect from what was
left. They were free to collect a
second harvest.
It
seems the purpose of the land Sabbath was to provide for the poor and to let
a fair amount of the crop fall to the ground and be absorbed back into the
soil. Perhaps also the “beasts of the
field”, which would be attracted, would also enhance the environment in some
positive way. In any case there are a
number of different situations to be concerned about here. There are those growing mint in their
apartment flowerpot and there are large-scale agribusinesses with thousands
of acres in production. In any case we
should do something to reestablish this practice in our little corner of the
earth.
Leviticus
25 goes on to talk about the Jubilee year.
Jesus’ message in Luke 4:18-19 is taken by some to be a reference to
the Jubilee year (JFB). He quotes from
Isaiah 61:1-2a. The acceptable year of
the Lord is associated with the Jubilee in Jewish writings. Of course, in order to have a Jubilee, we
are supposed to have Sabbatical years.
This
judgment obviously falls under the command to keep the Sabbath day. But isn’t it a bit of a stretch to get from
a weekly Sabbath to an annual Sabbath?
Actually no, it’s not.
Interestingly the Hebrew word usually translated ‘day’ in Exodus 20:8
is ‘yowm’. Its primary meaning is indeed ‘day’. However, it carries with it secondary
meanings of ‘time’ and ‘year’. In the
immediate context of Exodus 20:8-11 certainly ‘day’ is a reasonable
translation. In the larger context of the entire Sinai covenant including
especially Exodus 23:8-16 ‘time’ is just as valid a translation. That would have Exodus 20:8 saying
‘Remember the Sabbath time to keep it holy’.
Although Exodus 20:9-11 seems to be specific to the
weekly Sabbath, these verses draw authority from the creation. The purpose and plan of the creation is
pictured in the annual Sabbaths. It is not a great stretch to understand that
Exodus 20:8 was intended to include every Sabbath of the Lord, i.e. every day
in which no work was to be done as detailed in Leviticus 23.
In the same way, the Sabbatical year is part of God’s
Sabbath time. This was very likely
explained by Exodus 19:7-8, if not before.
It was also included in the judgments that accompanied the official
“Words” of the covenant of the Lord.
All Sabbath time it to be revered as Holy.
:12 Weekly
Sabbath
"Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh
day you shall rest, that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of
your maidservant and the stranger may be refreshed.
Here
the fourth commandment is more or less repeated. Most of the judgments add some new facet to
or shed additional light on one of the main commands of Exodus 20:3-17. There is a slight change in emphasis here
too, but it really gives us no new information.
The
emphasis seems to be on others resting besides ourselves. We are to rest so that our animals and the
servants can rest. The Creator wants
everyone to take a day off. So it
seems that anyone who takes advantage of some service for hire that a non-believer
offers on the Sabbath would be more directly condemned as being in violation
of the Sabbath by this instruction, more so than Exodus 20:10 might
indicate. It also ought to be clear
that whether or not someone is in a Sabbath state of mind or attitude is
irrelevant. The ox and the donkey are
not likely to be in a Sabbath attitude, but God still wants them to rest.
Obviously
emergencies can arise. Carelessness can also create an unnecessary
emergency. The Sabbath was made for
our benefit; we are not slaves to the Sabbath (Mat 2:27). However, lacking some emergency, why would
we put ourselves in a position to encourage a non-believer to offend the
Creator by working on the Sabbath?
Wouldn’t we be encouraging him to offend if we pay him for his work or
product? Wouldn’t we be guilty by
association? Nehemiah accused the
rulers of Judah of profaning the Sabbath, because they allowed others to
profane the Sabbath (Neh 13:16-18).
There is no indication the rulers were working themselves. Nehemiah really seems to hold the rulers
more responsible. They were in a
position to have known better. How
much more would we be guilty if we actually paid someone to work when there
was no emergency.
God
expects us to prepare ahead for the Sabbath.
This was taught to Israel very shortly after they left Egypt. He gave Israel double the manna in the
wilderness on the sixth day (Ex 16:22-26).
He says He will give sufficient produce in the sixth year (Deu 25:21)
so it will last through the eighth year.
The sixth day is for preparation so the Sabbath can be enjoyed by all.
:13 No
talk of other gods
"And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect
and make no mention of the name of other gods, nor let it be heard from your
mouth.
Our
Creator considers this matter to be serious.
We ought to understand by now.
Jokes about bombs are not tolerated in airports, why should our
Creator be understanding of casual mention of some imaginary god? They ought to be left to pass from memory.
Could
it be that the location of this instruction sandwiched between instruction on
the weekly and annual Sabbaths is to reinforce the need to be circumspect in
how we impact others on the Sabbath too?
:14-17 Appear
for and keep festivals
"Three times you shall keep a feast to
Me in the year: 15. You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened
Bread (you shall eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded you, at the
time appointed in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt; none
shall appear before Me empty); 16. And the Feast of Harvest, the firstfruits
of your labors which you have sown in the field; and the Feast of
Ingathering, which is at the end of the year, when you have gathered in the
fruit of your labors from the field. 17. Three times in the year all your males
shall appear before the Lord God.
Of
course all of these occasions are mentioned in the New Testament. “Purge out therefore the old leaven,
that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover
is sacrificed for us: 8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with
the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (I Cor 5:7-8)
“Now
when the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in
one place.” (Acts 2:1) I hope no
one was late. What an event, but what
Christian group still gathers on this day the way these people were
gathered? This day must be calculated
from the time of the offering of the wave sheaf (Lev 23:15). Hardly anyone actually calculates it,
including the Jews. They have
convinced themselves that it is calculated from one of the annual Sabbaths,
which really means no calculation is required at all. It falls on either Sivan 6 or 13 depending
on which annual Sabbath they use.
Paul also
recognized the need to keep Pentecost.
“For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not
spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at
Jerusalem the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16). Earlier he also cut off his journey to
attend a Feast in Jerusalem. Likely
this was Pentecost too, but the text isn’t specific. “When they desired him to tarry longer
time with them, he consented not; 21
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast
that cometh in Jerusalem” (Acts 18:20).
John
7:1-53 records Jesus as participating and teaching during the Feast of
Tabernacles. A fairly famous event
that took place during this festival was a water pouring ceremony at the
temple. Jesus is probably making
reference to this ceremony in verse 38.
Leviticus
23 also lists the pilgrimage festivals and includes as well some single day
occasions. The law of Moses was added
as a witness and included some things Israel should have understood even
though not specifically mentioned. The
additional single day events are evidently included there so Israel would be
without excuse.
There
is some differentiation made between the pilgrimage festivals and the
additional single day “Feasts of the Lord” mentioned in Leviticus 23:4. In fact, "feasts of the Lord" is
better translated "appointed times of the Lord". The Hebrew word chag meaning Feast or festival is not applied to the day of Trumpets
(Shoutings), Atonement or the eighth day after the Feast of Tabernacles. Chag is applied to occasions of joy
and mirth and is connected almost exclusively to the pilgrimage festivals.
The
unique thing about the festivals mentioned in Exodus 23 is that they required
the attendance of all the males at the place God resided. God also requested a special offering from
each male at this time (Deu 16:16).
The Jews called these festivals, pilgrimage festivals. The single day festivals of Trumpets and
Atonement did not require everyone to gather at the place of God’s residence
on earth or give an offering.
Since
these occasions are all lumped together in Leviticus 23 it seems that God
considers them all fundamental to His way.
:18 No
leavened bread w/sacrifice
"You shall not offer the
blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; nor shall the fat of My sacrifice
remain until morning."
Of
course leavening in bread is used often as a symbol of sin. This is especially evident in I Corinthians
5:7-8, quoted above. As symbols, God
is interested in honest things that are what they appear to be. Things that
are filled with air and look bigger or more important than they really are,
are not what God wants to represent Him.
The
first appearance of ‘sacrifice’ in this verse is zeh’vagh. It is often used of a peace offering
and appears frequently in Leviticus 3 & 7. It does not appear in Leviticus 1 or 2 that
talk of burnt offerings. The peace
offering is typically a festive occasion.
The one who offered the sacrifice typically gathered the whole
extended family together because the sacrifice could be shared by all. After two days though if anything was left
over it was to be burned (Lev 7:16-17).
All the more reason to invite the whole clan. No use worrying about leftovers.
This
is the kind of offering that would typically be offered during the
festivals. Actually the second
appearance of ‘sacrifice’ in this verse is Hebrew chag and typically
is translated ‘feast’. It appears in
verses 15 & 16 above referring to the feast of Unleavened bread,
Firstfruits and Tabernacles. It
typically refers to these three occasions.
The
three main festivals were not the only occasions when one could offer a peace
offering. It could be done at almost any
time, but certainly this type of offering should be done during these
occasions. If we want to honor our
Creator we need to honor Him the way He wants it done.
Blood
mentioned in this stipulation may be symbolic of our own lives. We don't offer our life with sin. We give up our own way in favor of living
the way of God.
Paul
taught that we are to sacrifice ourselves to our Creator (Rom 12:1). In doing this we should eliminate the
malice and wickedness that typically comes with those who have an inflated
opinion of themselves. We are to live
in sincerity and truth with humility and no pretense, just as unleavened
bread is without pretense.
This
is not the typical human condition.
However, God is interested in those that serve Him, not themselves. The real trick is to not be desirous of the
praise of men at the same time.
This
instruction also dictates that the fat is burned (not eaten) before the next
morning. Elsewhere the law reinforces
this by a statute that specifically states that the fat is not to be eaten.
(see Lev 3:17 & 7:23-25) Of course
now we know that many toxins are stored in the fat and it is not part of a
healthy diet.
**** end of possible
inset Sabbath section ****
:19a First
of firstfruits go to God's house
"The first of the firstfruits of your land you shall
bring into the house of the Lord your God.
This seems to fit
Deuteronomy 26:1-2. “And it shall
be when you come into the land… 2. That you shall take some of the first of
all the produce of the ground, which you shall bring from your land that the
Lord your God is giving you, and put it in a basket and go to the place where
the Lord your God chooses to make His name abide.”
However, the connection
between this verse and Leviticus 23:10-11 also seems unmistakable. “..when you come into the land
which I give to you, and reap it’s harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of
the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. 11.
He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted on your
behalf…”
Jesus Christ was the
first of the firstfruits (Col 1:18, Rom 8:29). Just like Israel was to bring a basket of
the firstfruits to God, so the very firstborn of the dead was presented to
God. Zechariah 3:1-5 may be describing
this scene, which would have taken place after John 20:1, 14-17. Keep in mind that Jesus’ name was really
Yeshua, which English speakers would normally transliterate to Joshua. The name Jesus came from the Greek
transliteration of the name.
Early in the day Jesus
withdrew from Mary Magdalene (John 20:17).
He didn’t want her to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the
Father. Later that same day Jesus
appeared to most of the disciples and encouraged them to feel the wounds and
scars (John 20:19-20, Luke 24:12-35, 38-39).
He had evidently been with the Father between those two occasions.
So it appears God is
requesting the first of the first fruits, not just because He wants stuff,
but because this looks forward to Christ being accepted before Him after
triumphing over this evil world and being sacrificed for our sins. This also reinforces the validity of the
wave sheaf ceremony detailed in Leviticus 23:10-11. That occasion looked forward to the acceptance
of our Messiah as the very first of the first fruits.
At least partly because
God killed the firstborn of Egypt and saved the firstborn of Israel, He
sanctified the firstborn for Himself (Num 3:13, Ex 13:15). He then gave His own firstborn to clean us
from our sins (Heb 5:5, Col 1:15, 18, John 3:16, Rom 8:29). Is a little produce to remind us of this
occasion unreasonable? If we wish to
honor God we will not forget.
:19b No
worship like pagans
"You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s
milk.
This
seems a rather odd climax to laws and instruction that are wise, just and
apropos. Certainly it seems heartless
to use a mother’s milk to stew her offspring.
However, this command is repeated in chapter 34:26 and Deuteronomy
14:2. So this is apparently quite
important and there is evidently a deeper issue involved here.
In
Arabia there was a custom that revolved around exactly what this verse
forbids. Remnants of it may persist
still. Evidently in ancient times it
was directly associated with certain superstitious rites to produce magical
charms and the broth from the dish was spread around the gardens and fields
to promote special productivity. The
Arab name of the dish uses words that are very similar to the Hebrew used in
this verse for ‘mother’s milk’. (see JFB Commentary)
What
one ought also to understand from this instruction, if not from anything
previous, is that God doesn’t appreciate any pagan tradition being used in
fun or attempted worship. If He
doesn’t want the names of the pagan gods mentioned (Ex 23:13), He certainly
will not want their traditions copied in a misguided attempt to honor Him.
These
judgments are and integral part of what Moses called the covenant of the Lord
(Deu 4:23) and the covenant made at Sinai (Deu 29:1). The words of Ex 21-23:19 were the bulk of
the book that Moses wrote and read to the people as part of the confirmation
ceremony (Ex 24:3-4, 7-8) of that covenant.
“…the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all
these words” (vs 8d). It was a
package deal. The judgments clarified
things that were not necessarily obvious simply by the words of Exodus
20:1-17. Consequently they carry the
same weight as the Ten Commandments.
Unfortunately,
this instruction and much else in this solemn covenant, has been set aside by the vast majority of those who
claim to be His followers. His Holy
festivals are hardly ever mentioned and the festivals of ancient pagan gods
are wrapped in new names (usually) and celebrated by all. Is it any wonder that we seem to be under a
curse?
****end
of No Other God section and entire
judgments/statutes section***
The
rest of chapter 23 exhorts Israel to obey and promises them blessings and
protection if they do. It also warns
them that if they don’t expel the current residents from the land that God
will give them, they will corrupt Israel and ultimately bring them down. The historical record shows this warning
fell on almost totally deaf ears. As a
result the kingdom did not last.
Part
of the problem is that people typically take a very surface only approach to
God’s instruction. What is needed is
to go deeper and understand the intent, so the concept can be applied to
situations that are not specifically addressed by the specific
instruction. In other words, one must
seek to understand the spirit of the regulation, not just the letter. This requires extended thoughtful
consideration and reevaluation; indeed continual diligent searching and
thought (Heb 11:6).
There
is also the human tendency to protect ourselves. Indeed, we acknowledge that
self-preservation is a basic human characteristic. The law of God requires we forego this
characteristic in lieu of dependence on our Creator. Those that will dwell with God, among other
things, will speak the truth even if it hurts (Ps 15:1, 4). They will not be depressed when punished,
but rather be anxious to make right whatever wrong was done. Job may have had his subtle problems, but
he understood this (Job 31:16-22). We
should be just as anxious, if not more so, to keep God’s law by paying the
penalty when due, as we are to do what He asks. He prefers obedience, but
repentance is the next best thing.
The
default penalty for all infractions of this covenant is death. It is someone's responsibility to see that
gets done. Who's? Well, the covenant was with the nation,
everyone. There were no judges set up
initially. The whole nation or at least the males, were all to be
representatives of God. There are no
uninvolved parties here. The reversion
to a patriarchal system based on already recognized leaders (Deu 1:12-16)
didn't necessarily change that.
When
someone was gathering firewood on the Sabbath, it was the responsibility of
the whole congregation to stone him (Num 15:35-36). The story of Achan (Josh 7) also makes a
point of group involvement and responsibility.
This
is carried on in the New Testament, although the application has changed a
bit, because we, as followers of Christ, are not responsible for the civil
government. "But exhort
one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened
through the deceitfulness of sin." (Heb 3:13). "And if any man obey not our word
by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an
enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (II Thes 3:14-15).
God
is telling us what very bad behavior is.
If we wish to really please Him, we should do the opposite, not just
the minimum.