web viewdeuteronomy is less detailed than leviticus, and can be seen as a kind of summary, ... the...

Deuteronomy 16 – 34 Commentary

16:1–17 The major feasts. The laws about sacrifices and offerings now continue with regulations about the three annual feasts (see also Ex. 23:14–17 and Lv. 23). Deuteronomy is less detailed than Leviticus, and can be seen as a kind of summary, with certain typical emphases.

The first feast occurs in March–April (Abib, known as Nisan after the exile), and is actually a combination of two feasts, namely Passover (on the 14th) and Unleavened Bread (15th–21st; see Lv. 23:5–8). This combination seems deliberate, as is suggested by the phrase Do not eat it [the Passover] with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat [it with] unleavened bread (see the RSV). Furthermore, no clear distinction is made between the lamb of the Passover sacrifice itself and the other animals offered at the sacrifices made during the week (2).

The purpose of the combined feast is twofold. First, it is to remind the people of their miraculous escape from Egypt, because of God’s power and his love for them (3; cf. Ex. 12–13). The need to remember God’s care for his people is very important in Deuteronomy (6:4–12; 8:10–18), and the Passover, more than anything else, is the great act of remembering. It is similar to the Christian acts of commemoration, above all Easter, recalling the deliverance won by Christ through his resurrection, and also the Communion or Eucharist. From the similarity comes the idea of Christ as the ‘Passover lamb’ (1 Cor. 5:7).

Secondly, the feast as presented in Deuteronomy, points forward to the life in the land which the book everywhere anticipates. The seventh day of unleavened bread (8), moreover, is rather like a Sabbath rest, and we recall that life in the land was to be a kind of rest (12:9). When the people later enter the land, they celebrate Passover, and immediately afterwards eat unleavened bread that is the produce of the land (Jos. 5:10–12). The linking of the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread in Deuteronomy is probably intended both to recall God’s past goodness, and to encourage belief that he will go on blessing in the land he is giving.

The Passover is essentially a family feast. It may seem surprising, therefore, that it is to be held at the central place of worship. However, after the sacrifice itself, the meal was indeed to be eaten in families, in tents (7) probably temporarily pitched around the place of worship.

The second feast of all Israel at the place of worship is the Feast of Weeks (9–12), also called the Feast of Harvest (Ex. 23:16) or Pentecost. It is celebrated seven weeks (or more precisely fifty days, Lv. 23:15–16) after the offering of the first ripe grain of the year which is made during the feast of Unleavened Bread (Lv. 23:15). Deuteronomy’s command to keep this feast has its typical emphases on rejoicing in worship, care for the poor, and memory of deliverance from Egypt.

Finally, the Feast of Tabernacles celebrates the gathering in of the whole harvest in late summer. Its name is explained by the command to live temporarily in tents during the feast as a reminder of the people’s temporary dwellings during their flight from Egypt (Lv. 23:42–43). It is part of an extended calendar of events in the seventh month (approximately September) recorded in Leviticus (23:23–43), though omitted by Deuteronomy.

While it was common for ancient peoples to have great agricultural feasts, Israel’s are

distinguished by the fact that they are linked to their salvation from Egypt. The regular blessings of the land, therefore, always remind them that all their good depends on that first salvation.

The summary in vs 16–17 expresses a further typical concern of Deuteronomy, that the people should respond generously to God in their worship, in the light of his goodness to them.1

17:8–13 Difficult cases. The difficult cases were not necessarily the worst crimes, but those in which it was hard to decide whether the offence had been committed intentionally or merely by accident or carelessness. The supreme court had its sessions at the place of worship, and was presided over by both priests and the judge. The judge in question would be one like Samuel, who is later seen exercising this duty at several places (1 Sa. 7:15–17). Quite how the judging was shared by the judge and the priests is not clear to us. The law shows again, however, how closely religious and civil law was intertwined in ancient Israel.

The decision of the supreme court was final, and the penalty for refusing to accept it, death (12). This might be disproportionate to the original crime, or even, presumably, be passed on the petitioner! It aimed, however, to preserve the process of law itself, and is, therefore, another fundamental safeguard of the covenant (13).2

17:14–15 I will set a king over me, like all the nations. See 1 Sam. 8:5, 20. Even though it will be several centuries before Israel has a king, Deuteronomy provides legislation for that eventuality, in language that suggests time elapsing: you possess it and dwell in it and then say. Kings descended from Abraham were anticipated in Gen. 17:6. whom the LORD your God will choose. To counter the people’s request to have a king like the nations, God insists that their king will be his choice. Yet God seems to allow the people some role in setting up a king. The king must be from among your brothers, that is, a fellow Israelite.

17:16–17 The warnings about too many horses and wives and too much wealth—which reflect the standard prerogatives of ancient kings in military, personal, and economic spheres—are precisely the pitfalls of Solomon (1 Kings 4:26; 10:14; 11:3–4). Here God is warning that governmental leaders will constantly face the temptation to abuse their power for the sake of personal gain, which is contrary to his will. Since Egypt was the place of slavery from which the Lord had just rescued Israel, it was prohibited for Israel to return to Egypt for help (e.g., Isa. 31:1; cf. Deut. 28:68).3

8:12 because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out. The destruction of the Canaanites is not an attack on an innocent people. It is God’s judgment against abominable sin (Gen. 15:16; see note on Deut. 7:2).4

1 New Bible commentary: 21st century edition. 1994 (D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer & G. J. Wenham, Ed.) (4th ed.) (Dt 16:1–17). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.


3 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (357). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.


18:15–19 God promises a line of prophets who will speak to Israel on his behalf (cf. Jer. 1:7, 9, pertaining to Jeremiah’s ministry). Moses speaks of himself as a prophet, the instrument of communicating God’s word to Israel (cf. Deut. 18:19; Ex. 7:1). Nations listen (Deut. 18:14) to magicians, etc.; Israel is to listen to God’s prophet (vv. 15, 19) rather than pagan means of revelation and guidance. On the voice of the LORD, see 5:23–28. a prophet like you. Now God speaks of Moses as a prophet and promises a future prophet like him for Israel. In the first century A.D., Jews expected a final prophet, whom NT writers identified as Jesus (Acts 3:22–24; 7:37; cf. John 1:21).

18:18 Prophets anticipate Christ, the final prophet (Acts 3:22–26).5

19:14 Moving the landmark, or boundary stone, of a neighbor is tantamount to theft of land (see also 27:17). The law emphasizes keeping land in families, since inheritance rights are basic to Israel’s life in the land. See the Jubilee laws in Lev. 25:8–34; also Prov. 23:10–11 and Hos. 5:10.6

20:1–20 The conduct of war. This chapter contains principles for the conduct of war. These include rules for war in general (10–15) as well as the special kind of war against the peoples who occupied the land God was giving to Israel (16–18). The opening commands, however, apply to all war.

The main point in vs 1–4 is that all Israel’s wars are really God’s. His power in rescuing Israel from Egypt, against impossible odds, is a reassurance that the enemy’s apparent greater strength need never be decisive. Even though not all war is ‘holy’, in the special sense reserved for war in the promised land (16–18), nevertheless, everything Israel did was ‘religious’, because their king was God. Thus it is that the army is addressed by the priest before going into battle. The main burden of his message is that the people need not fear, because God’s power is made available to them.

The law evidently did not intend that Israel should have a standing army (of the sort that Solomon would later gather; 1 Ki. 10:26). Rather, it has a citizen army in mind. This is clear from v 9, where commanders are appointed only when the army is being prepared for battle. It is clear too because vs 5–9 assume that people will be taken from their normal activities in order to serve. In this context certain exemptions are granted. One who has built a new house but not yet lived in it need not go; nor one who is involved in the long process of bringing a new vineyard to fruitfulness (see Lv. 19:23–25); nor one who is engaged but not yet married (see also 24:5). These exemptions are in line with the main thrust of Deuteronomy, that God is giving his people a land whose fruits they are to enjoy, and in which they themselves are to have children so that future generations might also prosper (7:13). All this is only possible, of course, because God will fight for the people. It is a people that trusts God that can dare to allow some of its best people not to join its army in a crucial battle.

This is most obvious from the final exemption, which is simply for those who are afraid (8)! It was imperative that God’s army should not be fearful, since victory depended on faith in a God who could overcome the odds. A fearful soldier might easily



spread fear, and this could turn the tide against the whole army.The rules of engagement are outlined for wars fought outside the promised land itself

(10–15). These are relatively humane for the day. The offer of peace gave the opportunity to make a treaty with Israel, in which the defeated city would have been subordinate, but protected and, to an extent, free.

The approach to a city in the land is quite different (16–18). These verses are, as it were, in brackets. They summarize the commands regarding the taking of the land in the first place (7:1–5, 17–26), which are recalled here to make it very clear that the preceding rules apply only to warfare outside the land.

The final commands, again relevant to all war, limit the damage caused to the environment by the conduct of war. The protection of fruit trees is easy to understand, especially in relation to the promised land, since the whole point of taking it was so that the people should enjoy its fruit. War should never defeat its own objectives. Even the use of non-fruit-bearing trees for siege-works, though permitted, seems to be limited by the strict needs of the occasion. The environment as such—God’s creation—is therefore respected.

The regulations for war in ch. 20 need to be used with great caution when principles are sought for the conduct of modern wars. The first requirement is to distinguish holy war from other kinds, even in Israel. Holy war is a concept which applies only, once and for all, to Israel’s occupation of its God-given land. Even Israel’s wars in general are special, because at that period in the history of God’s dealing with humanity his people was also a nation, a political unit. Now that that people is a church, which fights no wars as such, no nation has a mandate to suppose that God marches in its ranks in the wars that it fights—even where those wars may reasonably be thought just. By the same token, Christian ‘just-war’ theory is right not to take this chapter as a mandate for fighting against impossible odds.

On the other hand, the principles of restraint, diplomacy, mercy and respect for non-combatants remain valid for all wars. And any warfare which involves large-scale devastation of the creation itself should be repugnant, in view of vs 19–20.7

21:1–9 The unsolved murder. We have already had regulations regarding penalties for murder and manslaughter (19:4–13). The issue in cases of murder is not just the due punishment of the guilty person, but also a religious purification of the whole land and people (19:13), so that the covenant can continue. When the murderer cannot be found (and the present regulation seems to suppose that the unsolved killing is murder), the land cannot be purified in the normal way, i.e. by execution of the murderer (see also Gn. 9:6). This law, therefore, provides for the religious purification to be made in another way.

Responsibility for the procedure is taken by the elders of the city nearest to the scene of the crime (2). They carry out a ritual killing of a heifer. It is interesting that neither the heifer nor the place chosen for the ceremony should have been used for agricultural purposes (3–4). The ritual, therefore, is like a sacrifice in that the victim and the place are, as it were, set aside specially for the purpose—though the rite is not actually a sacrifice (since the animal’s blood is not spilt). It is also like a sacrifice in that it makes


atonement for the spilling of the murdered person’s blood (Lv. 17:11).The elders of the nearest city have taken responsibility for the act of atonement on

behalf of all Israel (8). They are themselves innocent of the crime, however, as is signified by the hand-washing ritual (7).

21:10–14 Marrying a captive woman. This law follows from the law about treatment of defeated enemies in foreign lands (20:10–14, especially v 14). A man may take a captive woman as his wife after certain rituals have been observed. The shaving of hair, trimming of nails and changing of clothes are symbols of mourning for her father and mother. This may mean only that she mourns her removal from family and homeland. The rituals, therefore, represent a leaving behind of the former homeland, a kind of transition to becoming an Israelite.

Once the rituals have been completed, the marriage may be consummated. If for any reason the husband then decides to divorce her, she must be treated with all the rights of a wife, not a slave, and become a free person. The word translated dishonoured (14) may only be another way of referring to the consummation of the marriage, i.e. that which gives her her right to freedom.8

Various laws. 22–23 The hanging here, which may mean impalement on a post, is the exposure of a body after the execution itself (see 1 Sa. 31:10). Such a practice was probably ancient, and intended to heap shame on the victim even after his death, by showing that, as one who had broken the covenant, he was under God’s curse. Non-burial was supposed to prevent the spirit of the dead person enjoying repose in the after-life. The law here limits this, perhaps because the curse on the murderer might somehow defile the whole people (23b). This law lies behind the statement in Gal. 3:13 that Christ took upon himself the curse of the law due to all because of sin. The manner of his execution, therefore, was awful not only because of its pain, but also because of its shame.9

23:1–8 Exclusion from the assembly. The assembly of the LORD is the people of Israel as it worships the Lord in the tabernacle or temple. To belong to Israel at worship is to belong to it completely. In the ancient world, as in the modern, people often moved and settled in new places. As Israel became well-established in their land, they would face the question, on what basis might foreigners living among them become effectively members of Israel?

The exclusions in vs 1–2 probably arise from involvement in the worship of other gods. The deformities in v 1 may be self-inflicted mutilations for the purposes of idolatrous worship, possibly of the goddess Ishtar. The forbidden marriage (2) suggests a union with a cult-prostitute.

Ammonites and Moabites were permanently excluded from fellowship with Israel because of their determined resistance to them on their way to the promised land. Moab’s resort to magical arts to prevent their arrival inevitably rebounded upon them because of the Lord’s greater power (Nu. 22–24). Nevertheless, their hostility is remembered


9 New Bible commentary: 21st century edition. 1994 (D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer & G. J. Wenham, Ed.) (4th ed.) (Dt 21:22–22:12). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

sombrely here. Ammon is presumed to have resisted similarly (see Nu. 21:24), though there is no similar record of a confrontation with that people (cf. 2:37).

Edomites and Egyptians, on the other hand, could be treated more generously. Both had in fact opposed Israel’s progress towards their land, Egypt at the very beginning (Ex. 7–14) and Edom on the way (Nu. 20:18–21). In these cases, however, other factors are more important: it was in Egypt that Israel was permitted to flourish for many years and become a people; and Edom was Israel’s brother in a special sense, because the people’s ancestor Esau was the brother of Jacob (Gn. 25:21–26).10

24:1–4 This is a good example of “case law,” where vv. 1–3 present the situation (“When …”) and v. 4 is the actual law (“then …”). The law forbids the first husband taking back the wife he found no favor with after she is subsequently divorced or widowed. By charging his wife with some indecency, the first husband acquired her dowry—her father’s marriage present to her—when he divorced her. Remarrying, she was given a second dowry. This example then implies that, when her second marriage ended (either through death or through more trivial grounds of divorce), she was able to keep her second dowry. The first husband is forbidden to remarry her to acquire her second dowry. This law protects the woman from exploitation by her first husband. This is the only OT law about divorce. Elsewhere divorce is presupposed (e.g., Lev. 21:7, 14; Num. 30:9). See Jesus’ comments on this law in Matt. 5:31–32. In Matt. 19:7, Pharisees defend their position on divorce by appeal to this law; Jesus, however, appeals to the creation account (Gen. 1:27; 2:24) to show God’s ethical ideal. This law is a concession to hardness of hearts, preserving a minimum level of civility for the theocracy.11

24:5 This law is related to those in 20:5–7, which make certain exemptions from military service. The newly-wed man is now further exempted from all public service. The crucial importance of having children underlies the law, but the purpose of bringing happiness to his wife is typical of Deuteronomy’s strong emphasis on the land as a blessing to the whole people.12

24:17–18 sojourner … fatherless … widow’s garment. These three groups, as landless people, represented the most vulnerable in the land (see 10:18–19 and note). Israel’s own time spent in Egypt as slaves was to motivate their proper treatment of landless people. See also v. 22.13

25:5 husband’s brother. In Latin, brother-in-law is levir, hence the term “levirate marriage” is applied to this law. Its purpose was protection for the widow and is a case where polygamy was allowed (i.e., the brother-in-law may have already been married). See also Gen. 38:8–10. The law reflects the strong sense of obligation placed on family, as well as a desire to preserve the family line (see Deut. 25:9). Ruth 4:1–12 seems to



12 New Bible commentary: 21st century edition. 1994 (D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer & G. J. Wenham, Ed.) (4th ed.) (Dt 24:1–25:16). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.


combine this institution with redemption by the closest kinsman (see Introduction to Ruth: Key Themes). In Matt. 22:23–33 the Sadducees use this law in an effort to disprove the idea of resurrection, and Jesus reveals their faulty reasoning. It is possible that Paul’s advice in 1 Cor. 7:39, allowing a widow to marry “whom she wishes,” was addressed to Christians who thought this law was still applicable.14

25:17–19 The memory of Amalek. The harsh sentence on the Amalekites recalls their attack on the Israelites on their journey from Egypt (Ex. 17:8–16). This attempt to stop Israel reaching the promised land makes them similar to Moab and Ammon, who were permanently excluded from fellowship with Israel for this same reason (23:3–5). Amalek’s crime seems to be judged especially serious because of the methods used. The Lord’s enmity with them is permanent. In due course, Saul is instructed to put the decree against them into effect (1 Sa. 15:2).

The present command may be intended to round off the long collection of laws which began at ch. 12; its reference to rest from all the enemies (19) recalls 12:9.15

26:1–15 Firstfruits and third-year tithe. We have seen that the body of laws which began at ch. 12 has been drawing to a close with the command to remove the memory of Amalek (25:17–19). It is now formally rounded off in this chapter with instructions about two ceremonies. These are hardly new material, but are placed here for a particular reason.

The first ceremony is that of firstfruits, or the offering of the first ripe produce in early summer. This would normally happen at the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:15, 20; Nu. 28:26). Deuteronomy’s law about the Feast of Weeks (16:9–12) did not expressly mention the firstfruits, no doubt because this passage was being deliberately kept for its present place in the book.

The reason for keeping it until now is that the offering of the firstfruits had special significance the first time that it was done in the new land. The present law is thinking primarily of that very first offering of the fruits of harvest which was made by the people which God had taken from slavery, and then from desert wandering, to being a people with a land of its own. While Israel was to bring its firstfruits regularly throughout its history, there is something specially moving about this ceremony (a little like the first American Thanksgiving) as a token of God’s keeping of his promises.

The ceremony involves a kind of confession of faith which recognizes this faithfulness of God and contains the bones of the story of the making of Israel. It begins by remembering Jacob, the ancestor of Israel, called here a wandering Aramean (5). The phrase refers to his relatively unsettled life and migration to Egypt, and also to his years spent in the area of Aram, or Syria, where he married Rachel and Leah, daughters of Laban the Aramean (Gn. 28:5; 29). The confession continues by recalling the migration to Egypt, when the people of Jacob were ‘few in number’ (Gn. 46:8–27), the oppression by the Egyptians, the deliverance by the mighty acts of God and the final arrival in the land itself (5–9). It may seem odd that the covenant on Horeb is not mentioned. But the emphasis falls squarely on the story of promise, going back to the forefathers of Israel



(Gn. 12:1) and now gloriously fulfilled. The ceremony was to happen at the central place of worship (2), and the usual notes of rejoicing and of help for the needy are present (11).

A second ceremony is now envisaged (12–15), namely the tithe of the third year, already met in 14:28–29 (see comment there). Like the firstfruits, this too is not actually a new command. It is repeated here perhaps with a view to the first observance of it in the land, and because it is typical of the spirit of the laws. That is, that the life of Israel, including the rituals of worship, centred on mercy and justice. The concern for the poor is in fact shared by the two rituals provided for in this chapter.

The tithe of the third year is accompanied by a declaration that the worshipper has fulfilled his obligations, first in bringing the tithe itself (here called the sacred portion), and then in keeping all God’s commandments (13). The point of v 14a is to ensure that the food offered for the tithe had been handled in a ritually correct way. Food might become unclean through contact, even indirect, with a dead body, and this would apply to food eaten by one who was in mourning. Offering to the dead is unclear; it may refer to a practice in Canaanite religion, perhaps an offering to Baal himself, or it may simply be the giving of food to mourners in sympathy (Je. 16:7), which would be unclean for the reason just mentioned.

The ceremony closes with a prayer which recognizes two facts, both important in the theology of Deuteronomy in general; that God is spiritual and does not actually ‘dwell’ in the place of worship which he himself has caused to be built for him on earth (see also 1 Ki. 8:27–30); and that the good things which the people enjoy in the land are entirely due to God’s gift, not their own strength (see 8:17–18). The long section of laws closes suitably on this strong note of the land as a gift.16

30:1–10 Returning to the Lord. The covenant curses in ch. 28 come to a climax with the threat of Israel’s exile from her land (64–68), and the preaching in ch. 29 seems to suggest that this curse is likely. Moses then went a stage further, for these verses look to a future time when the exile has become a reality. The first verse supposes that the blessings and the curses have come in sequence. That is, they look forward to a time when the people, having first enjoyed the blessings of the land (which in Moses’ day they were about to enter), in due course experience the curses of the covenant because they have failed to keep the covenant. This is a new situation that the preaching of the covenant is considering, for up till now it has concentrated on persuading the people to be faithful, and thus to avoid the disaster altogether.

The present passage shows, however, that even if the curses of the covenant should be invoked, that will not necessarily be the end of the story of God and his people. The grace of God has been shown marvellously to Israel in his choice of them and his making of a covenant with them in the first place, but it has not been exhausted even by these acts of love.

There is a future for the people of God. It does not follow automatically, however. A condition is attached, namely heartfelt repentance (2). The restoration of the people will be like their first blessing in that it involves both promises (land, population, prosperity; vs 5, 9) and commands (6b, 8, 10). Can this new arrangement, however, have any more success than the first? A new element in this passage recognizes the problem.


The new element is that the Lord is seen here taking a decisive new part in their fortunes. It will be by his power that they will be restored to their land. (This is the meaning, in effect, of the phrase restore your fortunes; v 3, see also Je. 29:14; 30:3.) Not only this, however, but he will create in them a new ability to be faithful. This is implied by the phrase: The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts (6); the same figure of speech in 10:16 had simply been an exhortation. In some mysterious way the Lord will renew the relationship to make his people faithful (though their own need to repent is not bypassed; v 2). This is without lessening the need for their real obedience; they are still responsible for their life with him. The point may be understood in the light of the NT teaching about the role of the Holy Spirit in enabling Christians to overcome their sinful nature (Rom. 8:9–27; Gal. 5:16–25).17

33:26–29 Conclusion. The twelfth brother, Simeon, is omitted. Simeon in fact disappeared as a separate tribe at an early stage after the occupation of the land, simply absorbed, it seems, by Judah.

The closing verses focus again on the whole purpose of the blessings, namely to pray for the people as they go into the land. The blessings have tended to stress prosperity and military strength—the capacity of the people both to hold the land and to defend it. These have been the dominant themes of the whole book. In returning to them, Moses celebrated the incomparability of the Lord (26). 18

Joshua 1-5 Commentary

1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you. The fact that the Lord is sovereignly giving Israel the land does not negate their responsibility to step out in faith and take what is given (cf. vv. 9, 18).

1:4 The Land of Promise is to stretch from the wilderness in the south to Lebanon in the north, and from the river Euphrates in the (north) east to the Great Sea (the Mediterranean) in the west. This broad-brush description recalls Num. 34:1–12, where the Lord provides Moses a more detailed delineation of the boundaries of Israel’s “inheritance” in the land of Canaan (see map; cf. also Gen. 10:19; 15:18; Num. 13:17–22; Deut. 1:7).19




1:12–18 Joshua ordered the Transjordanian tribes (Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh) to send their best warriors ahead to help with the conquest. This was in accordance with the command Moses had given these tribes in Dt 3:12–20. The theme of “rest” is prominent in the narrative. “Rest” is equivalent to possession of the land; the Transjordanian tribes would not “rest” in their land until the ten tribes possessed the land of Canaan.20

2:1 Joshua … sent two men … as spies. The sending of the two spies, to gather intelligence about the hostile territory, underscores Joshua’s skill as a leader and his concern for prudent preparation. In the wider context, the story of the initial conquest and defeat of Jericho stands in stark contrast to the narrative describing Israel’s failure to take possession of the land 40 years earlier (see Numbers 13–14 and Deuteronomy 1). It also shows the stark contrast between the bad report of the 10 spies (Num. 13:25–33) as compared to the good report of the two spies (“Truly the LORD has given all the land into our hands,” Josh. 2:24). Shittim, which means “the Acacia trees,” was east of the Jordan River, though its exact location is unknown. Two potential sites have been proposed: Tell el-Kefrein, 6 miles (9.7 km) northeast of the Dead Sea, and the much larger Tell el-Hamman, 2 miles (3.2 km) farther east of the Jordan. Shittim was the site of an earlier instance of Israelite prostitution, both physical and spiritual (Num. 25:1–3). into the house of a prostitute. The narrative carefully avoids any suggestion of a sexual relation between the spies and Rahab. The house most likely was a kind of inn or way station, which would be a logical place to stay and to gather information. Although a prostitute, Rahab was spared judgment by the mercy of God, and she is remembered as one of the ancestors of Christ (Matt. 1:5), for her faith (Heb. 11:31) and for her good works (James 2:25).21

2:4 I did not know. Rahab’s deceptive response has been alternatively condemned as a lie or defended as justified in the context of (impending) warfare. The narrative, in fact, does not address this ethical issue, and the NT, while commending Rahab for protecting the spies, offers no explicit comment regarding her methods (Heb. 11:31; James 2:25). Similar instances of “deception” are found in Ex. 1:15–21; 1 Sam. 16:2; 1 Kings 22:19–23. Given that this is a descriptive narrative, rather than prescriptive instruction, no general ethical principles can be drawn from her actions. It is also possible, however, to say that Rahab’s profession of faith (see Josh. 2:9–14) implies her new allegiance to the Lord and to his people. Thus she helps them in their warfare, and she expresses her new allegiance by protecting the spies with a ruse. (Cf. 8:5–8, where Joshua uses a ruse to win a battle.) Rahab is one of four women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus in the first chapter of Matthew; the other three are Tamar (Matt. 1:3), Ruth the Moabitess (Matt. 1:5), and the “wife of Uriah” (Matt. 1:6).22

2:9 I know that the LORD has given you the land. Rahab shows a remarkable awareness of Israel’s history and of the Lord’s intention to give Israel the land of Canaan

20 Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (324). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.



(cf. 1:2). Her confession is filled with the language and theology of the Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy, and echoes Josh. 1:2. The narration itself does not clarify whether her confession implies spiritual conversion or simply recognition of the supreme power of Israel’s God, but her later integration into Israel (6:17, 25) favors a genuine conversion.23

2:12–14 we will deal kindly and faithfully with you. The response of the spies (v. 14) comes as a surprise, given that Israel was to dispossess and destroy the inhabitants of the land God had promised to Israel (see Num. 33:50–52; Deut. 7:1–2). This underscores the gracious character of the God of Israel and the fact that the boundary between Israel and Canaan was not drawn along ethnic lines but in terms of allegiance to the Lord. It also shows that there was room for exceptions in the general instruction to destroy the Canaanites, for people who came to genuine faith in the God of Israel.24

3:14–17 When the priests carrying the ark of the covenant stepped into the Jordan River the waters “stood still, rising up” and the people crossed over on dry ground. The fact that the Jordan River was at flood stage heightens the wonder of the miracle; even the downstream waters ceased to flow toward the Dead Sea. Not since the exodus (cp. Ex 14:21–22) had Israel experienced such an awe-inspiring event of divine intervention. The similarity between this event and Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea could not have been lost upon the people, as a reminder of the Lord’s presence with, and purpose for, Israel.25

4:5–7 Once again, God’s commander on earth’s stage obeyed his instructions. The twelve stones were to serve forever as a sign and as a memorial (cf. Ex. 12:26–27; Dt. 6:20–25). Memory plays an important role in any society. Without a memory a person loses identity, and without a history to sustain it a society and the world around it become virtually phantom. Any society that hopes to endure must become, as sociologists put it, ‘a community of memory and hope’. In ancient Israel, monuments and rituals such as the Passover (Ex. 13–14) served this function. The numerous memorials mentioned in Joshua as still in existence (e.g. 7:26; 8:29; 10:27) were later superseded by the biblical books that sustain the church. It is assumed that the stories explaining the monuments were transmitted accurately in oral form until the time of the writing, otherwise they would have carried no conviction and could not have sustained the people in reality (cf. 2 Pet. 1:16). Some scholars reverse their function. According to them, these monuments encouraged Israel to create stories to explain their existence, not to remind them of what actually happened!

4:8–9 In v 9 the Hebrew reads literally, ‘and Joshua erected twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan’, expecting the reader to understand that these were twelve other stones (as the Greek translation clarifies). The solid stone platform which was removed from under the feet of the porters in the muddy river bed to make the memorial had to be




replaced (see NIV mg.). Obviously these submerged replacement stones could not serve as a national memorial, but for anyone interested, they were still there as signs at the time of writing, beyond the reach of vandals.26

5:2–12 The Israelites were circumcised because the new generation had not undergone this rite during the 40 years in the wilderness. Circumcision was the sign of the Lord’s covenant with Abraham (see Gn 17:10–14) and signified faith in Him. Through the ritual of circumcision the nation renewed its fidelity to the covenant. The celebration of the Passover commemorated the exodus. It marked a new chapter in the history of Israel, for with it the people began to live on the produce of the land of Canaan and no longer on the manna which the Lord provided in the wilderness.27

5:2–12 The Israelites were circumcised because the new generation had not undergone this rite during the 40 years in the wilderness. Circumcision was the sign of the Lord’s covenant with Abraham (see Gn 17:10–14) and signified faith in Him. Through the ritual of circumcision the nation renewed its fidelity to the covenant. The celebration of the Passover commemorated the exodus. It marked a new chapter in the history of Israel, for with it the people began to live on the produce of the land of Canaan and no longer on the manna which the Lord provided in the wilderness.28

PSALM 45-49 Commentary

Psalm 45. This is a hymn celebrating a royal wedding; as the title says, it is a “love song.” It is impossible to be sure for which king in David’s line the song was first composed, but it does not matter; after 2 Sam. 7:11–16, the line of David was the appointed channel through which God would bless his people and carry out his mission to the whole world. The psalm has sometimes been taken as directly messianic, because Heb. 1:8–9 cites Ps. 45:6–7, applying the verses to Christ. The notes below will make clear how the book of Hebrews uses these verses. 29

Psalm 46. The psalm is a hymn celebrating Zion as the special city, to which God has pledged himself and through which he will bless the world. Other psalms like this include Psalms 48; 76; 87; and 122. The psalm has two stanzas, marked by a refrain (46:7, 11).

46:1–7 A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. The people of God are secure, even in times of tumult and upheaval, because God is their refuge and strength (v. 1). God is present in his city (an emblem of his people as a whole) to protect it in all circumstances. Verses 2–3 use earthquakes, landslides, and the raging sea as images of raging nations and tottering kingdoms (v. 6). There is also a contrast: though the mountains be moved (v.

26 New Bible commentary: 21st century edition. 1994 (D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer & G. J. Wenham, Ed.) (4th ed.) (Jos 4:1–24). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.



29 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (992–993). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

2), Zion shall not be moved (v. 5). The reason is that God has chosen Zion to be his holy habitation, i.e., the place of his sanctuary, where his people meet him in worship (v. 4). a river. In contrast to the roaring seas (vv. 2–3), the streams of this river (perhaps an image of the grace found in worshiping the true God; cf. Ezek. 47:1–12) make glad the city of God.30

Psalm 47. This psalm celebrates God’s kingship, i.e., his rule over all the earth (see note on 5:2). The promises to Abraham (47:9), that all peoples will be blessed in him (Gen. 12:3), are founded on the fact that there is only one true God, to whom all mankind owes love and loyalty. Other psalms like this are Psalms 93; 96–99. 31

Psalm 48. Like Psalm 46, Psalm 48 is a hymn celebrating Zion as God’s special city, which he defends for the sake of the world. It commemorates some great event, in which Gentile powers had besieged Jerusalem but came away dismayed; it recognizes that though material fortresses may have their place, it is crucial that God himself be the defense of his people. 32

Psalm 49. This is a wisdom psalm, i.e., a hymn that reflects on topics typically covered in the Bible’s Wisdom Literature. In particular, it addresses the perplexity that the pious often feel when they encounter trouble, while unfaithful people seem to get along so well. Is not God expected to show his favor for the pious in how he treats them? The answer is that God will distinguish between the faithful and the unfaithful in what happens to them when they die. The psalm follows a very simple argument: it calls everyone to pay attention (vv. 1–4); then it reminds the singers that everyone has a common outcome, namely, all will die (vv. 5–12); and it finishes by stressing the contrasting destinations for the faithful and the unfaithful (vv. 13–20). Verses 12 and 20 are very similar, the key difference being in the words translated “remain” and “understanding,” which sound almost the same in Hebrew (yalin and yabin). The element of understanding makes the difference, as the notes will show. Those who sing this will want to continue living faithfully, and will be strengthened against the temptation either to despair or to give up and join the unfaithful. Other psalms that address the same topic include Psalms 37 and 73.33


31 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (994–995). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.



web viewdeuteronomy is less detailed than leviticus, and can be seen as a kind of summary, ... the...

Documents