Deeper Commentary
Deu 17:1 You must not sacrifice to Yahweh your God an ox or a sheep
in which is a blemish or anything imperfect, for that is an abomination to
Yahweh your God-
This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus (1
Cor. 5:7). The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which
is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect")
before God (Gen. 6:9; 17:1). Although the word is used about the
sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be
perfect with Yahweh your God" (Dt. 18:13), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w.
"without blemish")" (Josh. 24:14). The idea, therefore, was that the
offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our
lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (Rom. 12:1). And yet in
practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best
they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us.
David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the
"upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms.
Deu 17:2 If there is found in the midst of you, within any of your
gates which Yahweh your God gives you, a man or woman who does that which
is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God in transgressing His covenant-
Like Paul in his time of dying, Moses in Deuteronomy saw the importance
of obedience, the harder side of God; yet he also saw in real depth the
surpassing love of God, and the grace that was to come, beyond Law. This
appreciation reflected Moses' mature grasp of the Name / characteristics
of God. He uses the name "Yahweh" in Deuteronomy over 530 times, often
with some possessive adjective, e.g. "Yahweh thy God" [AV- i.e. you
singular], or "Yahweh our God". He saw the personal relationship between a
man and his God. Jacob reached a like realization at his peak.
Deu 17:3 and has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, or the
sun or the moon or any of the army of the sky, which I have not commanded-
Moses told Israel this when they had carried the star of Remphan and
the tabernacle of Moloch through the wilderness, and had taken the idols
of Egypt with them (Ez. 20:7,8). Joshua had to appeal to that generation
to put away their idols. We see here how Moses was talking on one level,
but the people were completely on another.
Deu 17:4 and it is told you and you have heard of it, then you must
inquire diligently-
Reports of wrong doing cannot all, therefore, be shrugged off as
gossip which we don't want to hear. That can be a lazy response. The far
harder response is to do as asked here, to "inquire diligently" and
establish facts.
Behold, if it is true and certain that such abomination is done in
Israel-
Moses knew that such idolatry was ongoing in Israel as he spoke. But
it is left an open question as to why he did nothing further than lament
it at the end of Deuteronomy. Perhaps he reflected God's great enthusiasm
for Israel at this time, for He did not behold iniquity in Jacob (Num.
23:21), and presents Himself in Jeremiah as having fallen totally in love
with Israel in the wilderness, wishing not to see their unfaithfulness.
Deu 17:5 then you must bring forth that man or that woman who has done
this evil thing to your gates, even the man or the woman, and you shall
stone them to death with stones-
The use of stoning (Dt. 13:10; 17:5; 21:21; 22:21,24) was to show
their connection with the death of the apostate. It was to also make them
realize that any attempt to deny the saving work of God in bringing them
out of Egypt, or attempt to reverse it by returning them to bondage, was
worthy of death (Dt. 13:10). We note that false teaching, enticing others
to sin, is seen as the most serious kind of sin. The New Testament
teaching about church discipline takes a similar approach; moral weakness
of individuals was tolerated, although criticized; but those teaching such
behaviour were condemned. Stoning resulted in the covering of the body
with the dust of the earth, as if recognizing that the death being brought
about was also to be the fate of all under the curse in Eden.
Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he who is to die be
put to death. At the mouth of one witness he must not be put to death-
Insisting on more than one witness before accepting
the truth of an allegation meant that gossip and slander were limited; and
Jesus applies this principle to dealing with disputes within His church
(Mt. 18:16). Although His teaching about not condemning our brethren meant
that He didn't advocate as it were 'putting to death', but rather stern
rebuke and damage limitation. Those who served other gods had to die on the testimony of
two or three witnesses. This idea is twice alluded to in the New Testament
in the context of making the decision to cease fellowship with someone
(Mt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). The implication is that death under the Old
Covenant pointed forward to first century church discipline under the New
Covenant. But we must note that the reason for this was serving other gods
and wilful departing from covenant relationship with the Lord- not minor
reasons.
Deu 17:7 The hand of the witnesses must be first on him to put him to
death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall put away the
evil from the midst of you-
There is stress upon close family members were to be the first to
slay apostate members whose apostacy they had reported (Dt. 13:9; 17:7).
They were being taught that they had to love God far more than family, and
the Lord Jesus continued this teaching (Mt. 10:37).
Deu 17:8 If there arises a matter too hard for you in judgment, between
blood and blood, between plea and plea and between stroke and stroke,
being matters of controversy within your gates, then go up to the place
which Yahweh your God shall choose-
Judging between "blood and blood" may refer to judging
whether between murder and manslaughter. The sanctuary was intended to be
a point of national focus, and this reflects God's great interest in unity
amongst His people. But God never stated that He had chosen a place in
Israel, at least not [arguably] until the time of David. Israel were
simply not responsive enough to enable all His intended plans to come
about, and therefore so much of the law was not possible of complete
fulfilment as intended.
Deu 17:9 and come to the priests the Levites and to the judge who shall be
in those days and ask. They shall show you the sentence of judgment-
David and Solomon appear to have concentrated all judgment in
themselves, setting themselves up effectively as both king and priest, for
the "judge" was to be a priest. Jehoshaphat reformed this by placing the
power of judgment in the hands of a group of Levites, priests and heads of
families as the higher court in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 19:5-8). But still
Jehoshaphat didn't appoint a singular senior judge, as required in Dt.
17:9. We note from Dt. 19:17 that this singular priestly supreme judge is
called "Yahweh", because he was to be Yahweh's supreme representative when
it came to judgment. But it seems even the best kings of Judah preferred
to keep that office in their own power.
Deu 17:10 You must do according to the sentence which they shall show you
from that place which Yahweh shall choose, and you must observe to do
according to all that they shall teach you-
LXX "And thou shalt act according to the thing which they shall
report to thee out of the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and
thou shalt observe to do all whatsoever shall have been by law appointed
to thee". The idea may be that their judgment was based upon God's law,
but they would ask Him for wisdom as to how to interpret it, and they in
turn would "report" that in making judgments. And yet it seems that the
priesthood failed to be just judges, as the prophets very often lament the
corrupt judiciary in the same context as complaining of a corrupt
priesthood. They didn't judge according to God's revealed word, nor seek
His guidance; but judged according to their own vested interests. Just as
we can today.
Deu 17:11 according to the law which they shall teach you and according to
the judgment which they shall tell you, that you shall do. You must not
turn aside from the sentence which they shall show you-
The system of judges proposed by Jethro didn't really work, because
Moses again felt the burden was too great for him (see on Num. 11:11), and
so the 70 Spirit filled elders were appointed (Num. 11:16). But this too
didn't really work; because in Dt. 17:11; 21:5 we seem to read of the
priests effectively being the judges, under the direct control of Moses
and Aaron. The simple truth was that there was hardly a wise man amongst
them.
To the right hand
or to the left-
The wall of water on their right hand and left when they crossed the
Red Sea is twice emphasized (Ex. 14:22,29). It is alluded to later, when
they are urged to not depart from God's way, not to the right hand nor
left (Dt. 5:32; 17:11,20; 28:14). We passed through the Red Sea when we
were baptized (1 Cor. 10:1,2). We were set upon a path which is walled up
to keep us within it. And we are to remain in that path upon which we were
set. To turn aside from it would be as foolish as Israel turning away from
their path and trying to walk into the walls of water.
Deu 17:12 The man who does presumptuously in not listening to the priest
who stands to minister there before Yahweh your God, or to the judge, that
man shall die, and you must put away the evil from Israel-
“The evil one” in the Old Testament was always “the
evil man in Israel” (Dt. 17:12; 19:19; 22:21–24 cp. 1 Cor. 5:13) – never a
superhuman being, not any personal, superhuman Satan.
Deu 17:13 All the people shall hear and fear and do no more
presumptuously-
David however did act presumptuously, and yet lived- by grace. 2 Sam.
12:9 says that he "despised the word of Yahweh". Indeed, David "despised
the commandment (word) of the Lord... you despised me" (2 Sam. 12:9,10).
David learnt that his attitude to God's word was his attitude to God- for
the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. The fact that he is
condemned for having "despised the commandment of the Lord" in his sin
with Bathsheba indicates that David knew all along what God's will really
was. The fact that the flesh took over does not in any way mitigate his
responsibility in this. This is a direct quote from the Law's definition
of the sin of presumption: "The soul that does anything presumptuously...
because he has despised the word of the Lord... that soul shall utterly be
cut off" (Num. 15:30,31). Knowing David’s emotional nature and also the
fact that he did not completely turn away from God afterwards, we would
have expected a quicker repentance if it had been a passing sin of
passion. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that the sin was of
presumption rather than passion. In his prosperity he had said “I shall
never be moved” and he was determined that he couldn’t be (Ps. 30:6).
Hearing those words from Nathan must have struck real fear into David- he
was being incriminated for the supreme sin of presumption, for which there
was no provision of sacrifice or repentance. It is a mark of his faith and
knowledge of God as the God of love, that He is willing to go on to
confess his sin, in the hope of forgiveness. "You desire not sacrifice;
else would I give it" (Ps. 51:16) was spoken by David more concerning this
sin of presumption for which there was no sacrifice prescribed, rather
than about the actual sin of adultery. However, we must not get the
impression that David was a hard, callous man. Everything we know about
him points to him be a big hearted, warm softie. David's sin with
Bathsheba was in that sense out of character. Yet such is the stranglehold
of sin that even he was forced to act with such uncharacteristic
callousness and indifference to both God and man in order to try to cover
his sin.
Deu 17:14 When you have come to the land which Yahweh your God gives you
and shall possess it, and dwell therein and say, I will set a king over me
like all the nations that are around me-
Moses often reminds them that he knows they will turn away from the
Covenant he had given them (e.g. Dt. 30:1; 31:29). Here he shows that he
knew that one day they would want a king, even though God was their king.
He had such sensitivity to their weakness and likely failures, and in some
areas he makes concessions to them.
"Drive out" is s.w. "possess". We must note the difference between the
Canaanite peoples and their kings being "struck" and their land "taken" by
Joshua-Jesus; and the people of Israel permanently taking possession. This
is the difference between the Lord's victory on the cross, and our taking
possession of the Kingdom. Even though that possession has been "given" to
us. The word used for "possession" is literally 'an inheritance'. The
allusion is to the people, like us, being the seed of Abraham. The Kingdom
was and is our possession, our inheritance- if we walk in the steps of
Abraham. But it is one thing to be the seed of Abraham, another to take
possession of the inheritance; and Israel generally did not take
possession of all the land (Josh.
11:23 13:1; 16:10; 18:3; 23:4). The language of inheritance / possession
is applied to us in the New Testament (Eph. 1:11,14; Col. 3:24; Acts
20:32; 26:18; 1 Pet. 1:4 etc.). Israel were promised: "You shall possess
it" (Dt. 30:5; 33:23). This was more of a command than a prophecy, for
sadly they were "given" the land but did not "possess" it. They were
constantly encouraged in the wilderness that they were on the path to
possessing the land (Dt. 30:16,18; 31:3,13; 32:47), but when they got
there they didn't possess it fully.
Deu 17:15 you must surely set him king over yourselves whom Yahweh your
God shall choose; one from among your brothers you shall set king over
you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother-
It was God's wish that Israel would not have a human king; hence His
sorrow when they did (1 Sam. 10:19-21). Yet in the Law, God foresaw that
they would want a human king, and so He gave commandments concerning how
he should behave (Dt. 17:14,15). These passages speak of how Israel would
choose to set a King over themselves, and would do so. Yet God worked
through this system of human kings; hence the Queen of Sheba speaks of how
God had set Solomon over Israel as King, and how he was king on
God's behalf (2 Chron. 9:8). Israel set a king over themselves; but God
worked with this, so that in a sense He set the King over them.
Deu 17:16 Only he must not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the
people to return to Egypt, so that he may multiply horses, because Yahweh
has said to you, You shall not go back that way again-
See on Dt. 16:21. Moses commands any future king not to send God's
people to Egypt to buy horses because he could see that this would tempt
them to go back to Egypt permanently. There are many other example of this
kind of thing (Dt. 14:24; 15:18; 17:17-19; 18:9; 20:7,8). The point is
that Moses had thought long and hard about the ways in which Israel would
be tempted to sin, and his words and innermost desire were devoted to
helping them overcome. Glorious ditto for the Lord Jesus whom he typified
(Dt. 18:18). Note that the king was warned not to get horses for himself
from Egypt because the very act of sending Israelites back into Egypt
might tempt them to return there; we are to be sensitive to the spiritual
effect our actions may have upon others.
Israel were told
three times that Saul would have many chariots (1 Sam.
8:11,12). If they were spiritually aware, they would have realized that by
multiplying horses and chariots, he was going to be a King who ruled in
studied disobedience to the Mosaic Law (Dt. 17:16-21). They were given the
spiritual potential to grasp this. But they were already hard bitten in
their rebellion, and this potential spiritual help went unheeded (although
God still gave it to them potentially, even at a time when it seemed
pointless. He is so
ever
willing to coax His people back!).
The degree to which God wanted Israel to conceive of Him in terms of Angels is shown by carefully considering the command for Israel not to have chariots (Dt. 17:16 cp. Is. 2:7). As this form of transport became increasingly popular, it must have seemed as crazy as Christians being told not to possess motor cars. There must have therefore been a highly significant teaching behind it. Was the purpose of it to make Israel look to the Angel-cherubim chariots of God? The word for 'cherubim' carries the idea of a chariot; the notion of horsemen corresponds with the Angel horse riders of Zechariah and Revelation.
Ex. 14:13 could appear to be prophecy: “The Egyptians… you shall see
them again no more for ever”. But it is understood as a command not to
return to Egypt in Dt. 17:16- and because of Israel turning back to Egypt
in their hearts, they would be taken there again (Dt. 28:68). So we must
be prepared to accept that what may appear to be prophecy is in fact
commandment, which we have the freewill to obey or disobey. Ez. 43:7
likewise is more command than prediction: “The house of Israel shall no
more defile my holy name” (RV). It isn’t saying ‘this is a prophecy that
they will not do this’- for they did. Rather is it a plea, a command, that
they are not to do this any more.
Moses adds a whole series of apparently 'minor' commands which were
designed to make obedience easier to the others already given. Thus he
tells them in Deuteronomy not to plant a grove of trees near the altar of
God - because he knew this would provoke the possibility of mixing Yahweh
worship with that of the surrounding world (Dt. 16:21). Likewise he
commands any future king not to send God's people to Egypt to buy horses
because he could see that this would tempt them to go back to Egypt
permanently (Dt. 17:16). There are many other example of this kind of
thing (Dt. 14:24; 15:18; 17:17-19; 18:9; 20:7,8). The point is that Moses
had thought long and hard about the ways in which Israel would be tempted
to sin, and his words and innermost desire were devoted to helping them
overcome. Glorious ditto for the Lord Jesus.
Deu 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, so that his heart
will not turn away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver
and gold-
See on Dt. 20:14. This has strong relevance to Solomon. He did
multiply silver, gold, horses and wives; his heart was turned
away (:16,17= 2 Chron. 9:20). Yet this passage says that if he
studied the Law all his life, this would not happen, and also his
heart would not be "lifted up above his brethren" (:20). Solomon's
whipping of the people and sense of spiritual and material superiority (2
Chron. 10:11; Ecc. 1:16; 2:7,9) shows how his heart was
lifted up. Yet Solomon knew the Law, despite his explicit disobedience to
the commands concerning wives, horses etc. But his knowledge of the word
didn't bring forth the true humility which it was intended to. Solomon
assumed he wasn't proud; he
assumed God’s word was having its intended effect upon him, when it
wasn’t. Such spiritual assumption is a temptation for every child of
God. God’s intention that the king of Israel should personally copy out
all the commandments of the Law was “to the end that his heart will not
be raised up above his
brothers”- i.e. reflecting upon the many requirements of the Law would’ve
convicted the King of his own failure to have been fully obedient, and
therefore his heart would be humbled. And soon after this statement, we
are hearing Moses reminding Israel that Messiah, the prophet like unto
Moses, was to be raised up (Dt.
18:18). Human failure, and recognition of it, prepares us to accept
Christ.
Deu 17:18 When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he must write for
himself a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the
priests, the Levites-
LXX "And when he shall be established in his government, then shall
he write for himself this repetition of the law into a book by the hands
of the priests the Levites". 'Writing for himself by the hands of the
priests' could mean that as the kings were illiterate, the priests were to
guide their hands in copying out the law. Perhaps "this law" refers
specifically to the laws in this section warning the king. Solomon must
have copied out these laws, and yet right from the time he wrote them out,
he specifically disobeyed them all. Solomon was a classic example of where
knowledge of God's law alone will not save anyone, unless it enters into
the heart.
Deu 17:19 It shall be with him and he must read from it all the days of
his life, so that he may learn to fear Yahweh his God, to keep all the
words of this law and these statutes, to do them-
Deu 17:20 Thus his heart will not be raised up above his brothers, and he
will not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left,
so that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in
the midst of Israel-
The victory of the Lord Jesus is described as Him 'prolonging his
days' (Is. 53:10), in allusion back to the way Dt. 17:20 teaches that the
King of Israel must study the word all the days of his life, with the
result that he would "prolong his days". The almost unbelievable victory
of the man Christ Jesus against every aspect of the flesh was due to His
saturation with the spirit of God's word.
Previous Chapter
