Law and History:

How to Read the Law of Moses

Introduction
Eric Auerbach, in his classic work on Western literature, devotes his rst
chapter to contrasting Homer with the Bible. Of Homer, he writes of the need of
Homeric style to leave nothing which it mentions half in darkness and
unexternalized.
1
This is more fully expressed in the following.
the basic impulse of the Homeric style: to represent phenomena in a
fully externalized form, visible and palpable in all their parts, and
completely xed in their spacial and temporal relations. Nor do
psychological processes receive any other treatment: here too nothing
must remain hidden and unexpressed.
2
In Homer, then, never is there a form left fragmentary or half-illuminated,
never a lacuna, never a gap, never a glimpse of unplumbed depths.
3
There is,
rather, what Auerbach calls a procession of phenomena which takes place
entirely in the foreground, that is, a local and temporal present which is
absolute. Homers style knows only a foreground, only a uniformly illuminated,
uniformly objective present.
4

Auerbach then turns to the Bible. He begins with the story of Abraham
offering Isaac as a sacrice in Genesis 22. As he says, comparing the Bible to
Homer, it would be difcult, then, to imagine styles more contrasted than those of
these two equally ancient and equally epic texts.
The personages speak in the Bible story too; but their speech does not
serve, as does speech in Homer, to manifest, to externalize thoughts
on the contrary, it serves to indicate thoughts which remain
unexpressed. God gives his command in direct discourse, but he
leaves his motives and his purpose unexpressed; Abraham, receiving
1 Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1953), p. 5.
2 Ibid., p.6
3 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
4 Ibid., p. 7.
1
the command, says nothing and does what he has been told to do. . . .
Everything remains unexpressed.
5
In Homer, since everything is externalized, completely expressed, and
connected together without lacunae in a perpetual foreground, there is no room
for interpretation. The Bible, on the other hand, since it expresses only what it
necessary and leaves everything else in obscurity, demands to be interpreted.
6
The
Biblical narrative raises questions that it does not directly or explicitly answer, at
least not in the immediate context. The reader of the Bible, then, is left disturbed.
Why is this happening? Where is this story going? The hermeneutic quest begins
as the reader compares Scripture with Scripture to nd answers for the questions
which naturally arise from the story.
Not only, however, does Biblical narrative remain mysterious and fraught
with background,
7
but it is also a narrative that makes totalitarian claims about
representing reality.
The Bibles claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homers, it
is tyrannicalit excludes all other claims. The world of the Scripture
stories is not satised with claiming to be a historically true reality
it insists that it is the only real world, is destined for autocracy.
8

Seeking to rightly understand the Bible, in other words, means the pursuit of
ultimate truth about reality itself if the Bibles worldview is true. Auerbach,
together with post-enlightenment thinkers in general, rejects the Biblical
worldview.
9
But at least he is completely aware of the immensity, the
comprehensive grandeur of the Bible and its worldview. He knows he is rejecting
an ancient theory of everything that calls into judgment those who do not submit
to it.
Thus, by way of introduction to this essay, I want to emphasize rst how
different the Bible is as a piece of literature from any other book we might read.
We need to remember that even though modern Western literary conventions have
been inuenced by the Bible, the Bible itself was not written according to our
accustomed literary conventions. This means that reading Scripture requires
special effort. We cannot understand it well through a casual reading. But this
5 Ibid., p. 11. In context, Auerbach is speaking of Genesis 22.
6 Ibid., p. 11. Concerning Homer, he also writes, Homer can be analyzed, as we have essayed to do
here, but he cannot be interpreted. Later allegorizing trends have tried their arts of interpretation
upon him, but to no avail. He resists any such treatment; the interpretations are forced and foreign,
they do not crystallize into a unied doctrine. pp. 13-14.
7 Ibid., p. 12.
8 Ibid., pp. 14-15.
9 Ibid., especially pp. 19 ff.
2
labor required to interpret the Bible is something that the Bible itself demands from
us.
The second thing I want to emphasize is that reading the Bible brings us
under the judgment of the Bibles teaching. Reading the Bible is not and cannot be
a neutral enterprise. The Bible does, as Auerbach duly notes, make totalitarian
claims. I believe those claims are true and that this book uniquely judges its
readers. It not only demands that its readers put in the extra effort to understand
it, it also calls its readers into judgment for their response to its contents.
Approaching Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8
This essay discusses Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8, a paragraph in the book of
Deuteronomy discussing the application of the Seventh Commandment.
10
I will
offer here an approach to the passage that differs from typical commentaries,
though I depend on their insights as well. The approach I recommend in this essay
is, for want of a better term, a meditative approach to reading the law of Moses,
the Torah. The particular sort of meditation I am advocating here, however, is not
a subjective, feeling-based reading. Rather, as Auerbach also demonstrates, I
believe that the text of Scripture itself, invites, provokes, and demands
interpretation based on comparing Scripture with Scripture.
In other words, Moses composed Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 in such a way that
he subtly reminds readers of other passages either in the laws of Exodus through
Numbers or the historical narrative from Genesis through Numbers. If we read the
law slowly enough, asking questions of the text, and meditating on its meaning,
we will discover subtleties and meaning that a casual reading completely misses.
However, I am not suggesting that our meditation should create a new meaning for
the text, the meditation I recommend is intended to enable us to enter the ancient
text and its fuller meaning with the mind of an ancient reader to the degree that
is possible.
11

To begin with, then, remember that David pronounced Gods special
blessing
12
on the man who delights in Yahwehs Torah and meditates on the Torah
10 James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1989), pp. 64-65. Jordan shows how the book of Deuteronomy from chapters
6-26 addresses each of the Ten Commandments in order.
11 James Jordans book, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World, attempts to
give a broad introduction to the Bibles own worldview in the Bibles language. This essay attempts
to apply that basic approach to the exposition of Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8.
12 In passing, I think it is important to note the distinction between the blessing (happiness)
promised to the man who meditates on Gods word and the blessings of the covenant promised in
Deuteronomy 28, for Deuteronomy is speaking of blessings for national obedience, not individual
obedience. In a nation of people who hate the true God, individual faithfulness to Him will often, if
not always, bring persecution and opposition, as it did to Jeremiah, Jesus, and Paul. What Psalm 1
3
day and night (Psa. 1:2). So, we naturally ask, What does it mean to meditate?
To answer the question, consider how the Hebrew word is used in the Old
Testament. The word translated meditate in Psalm one (:) only occurs 24
times.
13
The rst reference stands out. It is Yahwehs word to Joshua, commanding
him to mediate on the Torah day and night. Davids declaration in Psalm 1:2,
therefore, clearly looks back to Joshua himself as a man who meditated on
Yahwehs Torah and was richly blessed. That gives us an example, but it doesnt
show us concretely what the word means.
The second use of the word : in the Psalms gives us a concrete picture of
exactly what meditation involves. The wicked are said to devise (:) a vain
thing against Yahweh (Psa. 2:1). In other words, they meditate on challenging
God. Imagine the wicked devising plans, thinking and rethinking day and night
about how best they can make their rebellion against Yahweh succeed. Similarly,
another Psalm tells us how those who sought Davids life planned all day how
they could trap and destroy him (Psa. 38:12).
14
In these verses, the Psalms show us
that the hatred which consumes the wicked and preoccupies their minds with
plans for rebellion and evil is the precise opposite of the love for Torah that inspires
the righteous to dwell constantly on the law. To meditate is to think over and over
about the meaning of each statute and command, to ask questions about why God
gave a particular command, and to deeply consider what the command might
mean for daily life.
Thus, to meditate on the Torah is to be passionately preoccupied with it. This
is exactly what Psalm 119 show us.
I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies,
As much as in all riches. (119:14)
My soul breaketh for the longing
That it hath unto thine ordinances at all times. (119:20)
The law of thy mouth is better unto me
Than thousands of gold and silver. (119:72)
Oh how love I thy law!
It is my meditation all the day. (119:97)
How sweet are thy words unto my taste!
Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! (119:103)
ultimately speaks of is blessing and success of the sort that we see in Jesus peace and joy in the
true God in a life full of trial and suffering that bears fruit for eternity.
13 Josh 1:8; Isa 8:19; 16:7; 31:4; 33:18; 38:14; 59:3, 11, 13; Jer 48:31; Ps 1:2; 2:1; 35:28; 37:30; 38:12; 63:6;
71:24; 77:12; 115:7; 143:5; Job 27:4; Prov 8:7; 15:28; 24:2
14 They also that seek after my life lay snares for me;
And they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things,
And meditate on/devise (:) treachery all the day long.
4
Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage for ever;
For they are the rejoicing of my heart. (119:111)
Therefore I love thy commandments
Above gold, yea, above ne gold. (119:127)
I opened wide my mouth, and panted;
For I longed for thy commandments. (119:131)
Thy word is very pure;
Therefore thy servant loveth it. (119:140)
Consider how I love thy precepts:
Give me life, O Yahweh, according to thy covenant love.
(119:159)
Seven times a day do I praise thee,
Because of thy righteous ordinances. (119:164)
My soul hath observed thy testimonies;
And I love them exceedingly. (119:167)
It is my contention that what Joshua was commanded to do and what David
commended is exactly what the Christian approach to the Torah ought to be
though, of course, not the Torah only. We need to ask questions about each
command and statute in the spirit of one who is humbly seeking to know and
understand not only the law of God, but even more, the God of the law. Why did
Yahweh give this command? How does this t into Israels whole covenantal
system? What might this have meant to an ancient Israelite? Especially we need to
ask a particular question that modern Christians are not likely to ask, but I think
that ancient Israelites would have certainly ask: What in Israels history might this
law allude to? Or if allude is too strong a word, the question could be: What in
Israels history echoes in the background of this law? Or, even more generally:
How does this law relate to Israels history?
I need to emphasize in particular questions of this last kind, for questions
concerning stories have special meaning. Only when we can see the meaning of
the Torah in the light of Israels history will we be able to relate it to our history. N.
T. Wright in a discussion of worldview made the following observation.
Stories are one of the most basic modes of human life. It is not the
case that we perform random acts and then try to make sense of
them; when people do that we say that they are drunk, or mad. As
Macintyre argues, conversations in particular and human actions in
general are enacted narratives. That is, the overall narrative is the
more basic category, while the particular moment and person can
only be understood within that context . . .
5
Human life, then, can be seen as grounded in and constituted by the
implicit or explicit stories which humans tell themselves and one
another. This runs contrary to the popular belief that a story is there
to illustrate some point or other which can in principle be stated
without recourse to the clumsy vehicle of a narrative. Stories are
often wrongly regarded as a poor persons substitute for the real
thing, which is to be found either in some abstract truth or in
statements about bare facts. An equally unsatisfactory alternative is
to regard the story as a showcase for a rhetorical saying or set of such
sayings. Stories are a basic constituent of human life; they are, in fact,
one key element within the total construction of a worldview. I shall
argue in chapter 5 that all worldviews contain an irreducible
narrative element, which stands alongside the other worldview
elements (symbol, praxis, and basic questions and answers), none of
which can be simply reduced to terms of the others.
15
Our worldviews, in other words, are story-haunted. Stories are lurking
beneath the surface and behind the scenes of every event and action in our lives,
even every word we speak. In the nature of the case, this is no less true for ancient
Israelites than for modern men. Thus, for example, the narrative approach to
worldview questions that characterized Pauls writing was not original with him.
It is typical of all the authors of Scripture beginning with Moses. What this means
for Torah is obvious. Moses wrote laws and history that are haunted by the stories
that preceded them. Virtually every law in the book of Deuteronomy presupposes,
alludes to, recalls, reects on, or inescapably reminds readers of stories in Genesis
to Numbers.
16

Meditating on Deuteronomy, then, includes taking time to ask which stories
the various commands and laws allude to, relate with, or remind us of. As we
recall the stories from Genesis to Numbers, one of the outstanding features of the
basic story is that God Himself is the central gure. Biblical history is entirely His
story. Considering the links between the statutes and rules of Deuteronomy and
the history recorded in Genesis to Numbers guides us to God.
In addition, when we approach Deuteronomy, we need to remember that the
so-called Law of Moses perhaps better referred to as the Instruction of
15 N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p.
38
16 It is my contention that there are some laws that no Israelite could read without thinking of
related stories, even though the particular law itself may not contain the elements of a literary
allusion. We might call these echoes, but it seems even more ambiguous that that, so I have
added various ways of referring to them.
6
Moses since the Hebrew Torah is usually, if not always, closer to the English word
instruction than to law is written as instruction in wisdom and
righteousness.
17
As such Deuteronomy not only contains commandments, statutes,
and judgments, but it also includes stories of its own, hortatory material, and even
riddles and puzzles.
Allusions to other parts of the Torah sometimes qualify the meaning of one
statute by another. The effect of combining allusions to stories and laws, new or
revised forms of old stories, riddles, and puzzles with apodictic laws and case laws
is to multiply layers of meaning in the text. Thus, the so-called law is a multi-
layered, highly complex literary work. Simply making a list of the rules found in
the ve books of Moses would not at all do justice to the actual message.
18

In other words, the Torah was written in such a way that only meditation on
its commandments, statutes, and judgments would open the way to a true
understanding of the meaning of Yahwehs Torah and Yahweh Himself. A
supercial reading, like that of modern atheists skimming through the Torah to
nd material with which to accuse God, can only result in the most profound
misunderstanding though this is not accidental. It is what God intended. The
Torah was given both to illuminate and mystify its readers. For some, Gods word
is the light of life; for others, like Pharaoh, it hardens the heart. For all it is the
sword of the Spirit, which pierces as far as the division of soul and spirit (Heb.
4:12).
Therefore, Deuteronomy the quintessential book of Torah is much more
than just the Ten Commandments.
19
However, at the same time, it is important to
17 Actually, instruction might sound too much like a classroom word. Perhaps it is best to
explain what the Torah is and, then, transliterate the Hebrew rather than try to translate it. That is
what I have done in this essay.
18 Although Calvins commentaries on the laws of Moses contain much insight and the
arrangement of the detailed laws under the Ten Commandments correctly denes the relationships
of the various laws as applications of the Ten Words, nevertheless, by taking the laws out of their
original contexts, the commentaries miss the logical connections among the laws and their narrative
contexts. Calvin has inadvertently erased much of the theological message of the Torah. This
means, too, that it would be wrong for modern readers to approach the Torah expecting to nd
black and white rules for life, and to read the law as if it were written as a manual for success:
Follow these ten simple rules and all will be well. Though it must be admitted, there is actually
some truth to this approach. In the Ten Commandments Yahweh gave to Israel, He outlined a
pattern of life that would lead to rich blessing. If the nation of Israel would have obeyed those
simple rules, they would have lived long and happy lives in the land that Yahweh promised to
Abraham. At the same time, we must insist that the rules-for-success-approach threatens to take the
very heart out of the law. This is seen sometimes in a striking fashion when we nd a list of the Ten
Commandments that does not include the preface: I am Yahweh your God who delivered you
from the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.
19 I use the tradition expression Ten Commandments here, but in the rest of this essay I will employ
the more accurate translation, Ten Words. The Hebrew text does not say Ten Commandments,
but Ten Words. There are actually more than ten commands in the Ten Words, and the Ten Words
include material that cannot be subsumed well under the idea of command.
7
emphasize that most of the book, chapters 11-26, is an exposition of the meaning of
the Ten Words for Israels life. The allusions to stories and other laws, the
background taken for granted in this exposition, and the presuppositional
framework provided in the story of creation and redemption all function almost
as Biblical commentary on the laws.
20
If we take time to consider the laws of the
Torah in detail and look into their complex literary background, we will discover
that the Torah itself expounds the Torah.
What does this mean for our approach to Deuteronomy? It means that when
we read the book of Deuteronomy not to mention Exodus through Numbers
we must read it rst in the light of the history and laws that precedes it. This will
give us a key to understanding the various commandments, statutes, and
judgments in Deuteronomy. Of course, it is not the only key, but it does often
unlock mysteries, or, even better, sometimes opens doors to new mysteries. Then,
too, the history of Israel after the law, including the writings of the prophets, shows
us how the prophets and leaders of Israel understood and applied the law. Finally,
of course, we must ask how each particular law or command relates to Christ and
the new covenant.
The passage that this essay will concentrate on is Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8.
These verses are part of a larger section of Deuteronomy (22:9-23:14)
21
that applies
the Seventh Word to Israels life in Canaan. Though, as I said above, it is not
entirely wrong to call this law, we will see that these verses are more like a
Moses own meditation on the Seventh Word, actually pointing in directions that
are not at all apparent on the surface of the text.
There is one more matter that I should deal with by way of introduction. The
special concern of this paragraph (22:30-23:8) is with the assembly of Yahweh.
22
20 Calum M. Carmichael has the right idea about looking at the law through narratives, but because
1) he does not believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and 2) he disregards the Bibles
own chronology and story line, he distorts both narrative and law in a profoundly unilluminating
book. See the ironically titled: Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the
Light of Biblical Narratives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Ephraim Radner
does a much better job of showing how the laws of Leviticus t with the overall story of the Bible
climaxing in Jesus, even if he is not always very helpful in the exegesis of Leviticus. Leviticus, in
Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008).
21 In the Hebrew Bible, the verse and chapter division is different, with the English 22:30 being the
Hebrew 23:1. I think the Hebrew division is better. The English 22:30 begins a new section of laws
that contain numerous allusions to Genesis. 22:30 alludes also to other passages in the law, which
also allude to Genesis, specically, Leviticus 18:8; 20:11. These verses not only forbid a man to lie
with his fathers wife, they also pronounce the death penalty on anyone who would. The allusion
to the story of Reuben is obvious and its repetition in the law is pronounced (see also: Deu. 27:20).
It seems to me that the clear allusion to Reuben here is an indicator of a new section, since this law
is quite unlike the laws that precede it, but similar to those which follow, even though the assembly
of Yahweh is not mentioned in 22:30.
22 I assume this expression is synonymous in meaning with similar expressions such as, assembly
of Israel (Exo. 12:3), assembly of the congregation of Israel (Exo. 12:6), the congregation of the
8
What is the assembly of Yahweh? Put simply, to be a member of the assembly
of Yahweh was to be a citizen of Israel. However, the meaning of citizenship in
ancient Israel is quite different from modern conceptions. It did include political
or civil aspects the inheritance of land, the responsibility to pay taxes and to
ght in Israels militia, for example but these aspects of citizenship were
subordinate to or rather part of the larger and more important religious
meaning: the responsibility to participate in the sacricial worship of the priestly
people, to keep oneself clean from delement, and in general to love Yahweh and
keep His commandments. To be a citizen of Israel was to be a member of the
nation of priests that Yahweh had called to Himself to be His sacred treasure (Exo.
19:3-6). This special priestly relationship was the prominent feature of being a
member of the assembly, even when the assembly is being considered in terms of
responsibilities that we would regard as civil or political.
The requirement of ritual purity for the members of the assembly of Israel,
therefore, is a function of the priestly character of the people of God. Every law,
statute, and ordinance is given with this context in mind. The whole Torah is about
a holy God who has called a people to Himself to be a holy priesthood.
sons of Israel (Exo. 16:1), etc. including in Exodus through Joshua, at least, even the simple
expression, the assembly.
9
Chapter One
Deuteronomy 22:30
A man shall not take his fathers wife, and shall not uncover his
fathers wing (Hebrew: kanaf).
There are a number of unusual features in this law that mark it out from the
previous context, indicating that it is introductory to the following paragraph
about the assembly of Yahweh, even though this verse does not speak of the
assembly directly. To begin with, this law is apodictic in contrast with the case
laws in the preceding verses (22:13-29), but similar to the initial laws on the
Seventh Word in 22:9-12. Also, in contrast with the laws from 22:13-19, but similar
to the laws in 23:2-8, this law contains an evident historical allusion. Finally, 22:30
is linked to the laws in Leviticus 18 about forbidden marriages and to the law in
Numbers 15:37-39 about Israelite clothing. In particular, it is the clothing laws that
indicate this verse is already focused on the idea of Israels special place as
Yahwehs treasured nation. Also, the reference to clothing probably alludes to a
second story in Genesis, besides the primary and obvious allusion.
I am suggesting that what may appear on the surface to be a simple
command is rich with historical allusions, links with other laws, and layers of
presupposed background. It may be helpful here to list these before turning to the
exposition.
1. The story of Reuben violating Bilhah, though not directly alluded
to, nevertheless clearly stands out.
2. The similar laws in Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11 supply another layer of
legal background.
3. The law in Numbers 15:37-41, alluded to even more directly in
Deuteronomy 22:12, is alluded to here in the use of the Hebrew word
for wing. Signicantly, in Numbers this law provides the
immediate backdrop for the story of the rebellion led by Korah and
the Reubenites, which reinforces point 5 below.
4. The reference to uncovering the wing of the robe suggests an
allusion to another famous story in Genesis, the sin of Ham.
10
5. The motivation for this law is to be found in the story of the
Reubenite leaders rebellion in Numbers 16. This becomes clearer as
we read onward in Deuteronomy and discover this laws emphatic
repetition in Deuteronomy 27:20 together with the curse on Reuben in
33:6.
I also need to address one more question before entering into detailed
exposition. That is: would these allusions have been obvious to a reader of the law
in Moses day? They did not have the tools for Biblical research that we have.
Would they remember the laws and stories so readily? Actually, I believe it would
have been easier for an ancient reader to note the various layers in the law, in part
because we are not accustomed to reading the law with allusions in mind, but also
because in Moses day, the whole of the Scripture was just the books that Moses
wrote. The stories in Genesis of Israels great ancestors would have been told over
and over. Each tribe would know as much as possible about its own father, though
it was sometimes embarrassing.
Deuteronomy is such a long book that as we read it, we may forget where it
begins: These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel . . . in the fortieth year,
on the rst day of the eleventh month (Deu. 1:1, 3). Deuteronomy is Moses
farewell sermon just before his death, his parting words to the people he loved. We
can be sure that they are listening attentively. We should also imagine what
happens in the congregation of listeners, when Moses comes to the law in
Deuteronomy 22:30, with the story of Reuben obviously being alluded to. I can see
the other tribes of Israel glancing toward the Reubenites, and the Reubenites
holding down their heads in shame. Everything here is highly personal.
Remembering and noticing the most obvious allusions and background would
hardly require effort for them, though it does for us. Of course, picking up the
entire multi-layered complex of references would no doubt have required multiple
readings and meditation, but that is exactly what God commanded Joshua to do
(Josh. 1:8).
Reuben and Bilhah
Thus, it is not too much to suggest a historical allusion here to the story of
Reuben, who lay his fathers wife, Bilhah (Gen. 35:22). The incident with Reuben is
the only recorded case of a man lying with his fathers wife and through Jacobs
curse on his rstborn son (Gen. 49:3), Reubens sin receives special emphasis in
Genesis. This episode, though recorded briey and without emotional language, is
so prominent in the story of Israel that even though the law here is probably
prohibiting marriage to a fathers former wife rather than simple incest, the
allusion still stands. Israels history was short enough and the incident was
11
famous enough that it would be impossible for an Israelite of Moses day not to
recall Reubens sin when reading this law.
We may wonder why Reuben would commit such a sin. I believe Gordon
Wenham is correct in seeing Reubens sin as a political act, not a sensual one.
23
The
context of the story is important. In the paragraph immediately preceding the
record of the incident, Rachel had just died giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16-
21). This put an end to the long-standing rivalry between Leah and Rachel, which
had centered on having children (Gen. 29:31-30:24), nally allowing Leah to have
the limelight she so desperately sought. However, there remained one potential
source of competition, Bilhah. Since she had been Rachels slave, her children
would be seen as belonging to Rachel. Reuben, who seems to be especially close to
his mother (Gen. 30:14), would realize, as Wenham points out, that by lying with
Bilhah, he could cut Jacob off from Rachaels slave, ensuring his mothers
preeminence.
24

Legal Background in Leviticus
The laws in Leviticus provide another aspect of what is presupposed in this
text. The entire section of Deuteronomy 22:9-23:14 is about the Seventh Word,
which is also the central concern of the laws in Leviticus 18. Though the allusion to
Reuben remains central, it is not all that the law is about. The expression take his
fathers wife in the immediate context seems clearly to mean marry his fathers
wife, for just a few verses before this the expression take a wife is used clearly
to mean marry (Deut 22:1314; cf. also Deut 7:3; 20:7; 21:11; 24:1, 35; 25:5, 7-8). It
is doubtful that this law concerns a son seeking to marry his own mother. Rather it
addresses the case of a man seeking to marry a former concubine or a former wife
of the father, other than his own mother.
However, the use of the word uncover in Deuteronomy 22:30 clearly links
this law with the sexual prohibitions of the book of Leviticus (Lev 18:619; 20:11,
1721), for although the word uncover (:) is not a technical term referring only
to sexual sins, that usage is prominent in Leviticus where uncover (:) occurs 24
times in 20 verses exclusively speaking of sexual sin, not only unlawful marriage.
25
Thus, the verse would be prohibiting a son from marrying his fathers wife after
23 Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, (Dallas: Word Books,
1994) pp. 325-26.
24 There is a slight possibility that Reuben may also be asserting his own rights of inheritance as
rstborn, in a manner similar to Absoloms attempt to steal Davids place by openly lying with his
concubines.
25 The Hebrew word : (uncover) occurs in the entire Pentateuch 33 times in 29 verses, making
its usage in Leviticus denitive in a similar context. The following list includes every instance in
the pentateuch: Gen 9:21; 35:7; Exod 20:26; Lev 18:619; 20:11, 1721; Num 22:31; 24:4, 16; Deut
22:30; 27:20; 29:29. The verb is, thus, strongly associated with sexual sin, not just with unlawful
marriage.
12
the father had died or divorced his wife, but also forbidding a son from sexual
relationships with a concubine while the father lived.
26

For modern people these laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy might seem
unnecessary, but in ancient Israel where polygamy was tolerated, the law was
important and necessary. An older man might take a concubine who was as young
as, or even younger, than his son. For example, Davids concubine, Abishag, was
certainly closer to the age of Adonijah than David. Since she was renowned for her
beauty, it was natural perhaps for Adonijah to desire her, though Solomon was no
doubt correct when he suspected political motives for Adonijahs request (1Kin.
2:13-25). At any rate, it is marriages of this sort that the law forbids, though, as we
have seen, it would include the prohibition of the specic sort of adultery that
Reuben committed in lying with Bilhah and that Absolom committed by lying with
Davids concubines.
It is also noteworthy that the laws in Leviticus 18 are both prefaced and
followed by warnings for the Israelites not to be like the inhabitants of Canaan,
because the land vomited its former inhabitants because of their sexual immorality
(18:1-5, 24-30). The law of Leviticus 20:11, which in context specically addresses
adultery rather than marriage with a concubine after a father has died (cf. 20:10),
provides important background as well, since it pronounces the death penalty on
the man who lies with his fathers wife. Thus, Leviticus tells us that individuals
who imitate Reubens sin and societies that imitate the Canaanites sin deserve the
death penalty.
The Fathers Wing
The law in Deuteronomy 22:30 also contains an evident allusion to a law in
the book of Numbers, though it is not obvious to a modern reader because of our
translations. Deuteronomy here uses an odd term for the fathers garment by
referring to the place where the tassels are attached as the wings or corners of the
robe (cf. Num 15:38; Deut 22:12; 27:20). In other words, Deuteronomy 22:30 alludes
to Numbers 15:38 by imitating its obviously symbolic language. The word kanaf
(j::) originally refers to a birds wing (cf. Gen 1:21; 7:14; etc.) but it is used in a few
places to refer to the corners of a mans garment.
27
Signicantly in Deuteronomy
26 That a sin like Reubens is implied is also suggested by the parallel verse in Deuteronomy 27:20,
the only other verse in the Old Testament to use the expression j!:: : (uncover the wing): Cursed
is he who lies with his fathers wife, because he has uncovered his fathers skirt. And all the
people shall say, Amen. Here it is not marriage that is forbidden but lying with the fathers
wife.
27 Here is a list of every use of the Hebrew word j:: in the Pentateuch: Gen 1:21; 7:14; Exod 19:4;
25:20; 37:9; Lev 1:17; Num 15:38; Deut 4:17; 22:12, 30; 27:20; 32:11. There is some disagreement about
where the tassels were to be hung. It might have been on the hem of the robe, as in some ancient
pictures, or it might have been that Israelites wore an outer garment over their shoulders somewhat
like a cape to which the tassels were attached. Tigay comments: Ancient Near Eastern art shows
13
22:12, near the beginning of the section in Deuteronomy on the Seventh Word,
there is a prior allusion to the original law in Numbers 15. This makes for a double
allusion to the law in Numbers in the larger context. Clearly Moses is drawing our
attention to something.
What is the point of the allusion? We need to consider the law in Numbers to
discover what Moses had in mind. Numbers 15:37-39 teaches us that there is a
theological meaning and purpose to its clothing requirement.
And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel,
and bid them that they make them tassels in the wings of their
garments throughout their generations,
and that they put upon the tassel of each wing a cord of blue:
and it shall be unto you for a tassel,
that ye may look upon it,
and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them;
and that ye follow not after your own heart and your own eyes,
after which ye use to play the harlot;
that ye may remember and do all my commandments,
and be holy unto your God.
I am Yahweh your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God:
I am Yahweh your God. (Num. 15:37-39)
The tassels with the blue cords essentially functioned as a covenant
memorial. What does that mean? In Genesis 9:12-17, God told Noah that He
would set the rainbow in the sky as a sign to remind God of His covenant promises
to Noah. When God views the covenant sign, He remembers the covenant. So,
too, the blue tassels on the wings of the garments were to remind Israelites of their
holy calling to be the special people of Yahweh. The covenant is implied both in
the expression do all my commandments and in the warning not to play the
harlot. Also, the command to be holy expressed the core of Israels covenant
obligation as the chosen race, for it was in order that they might be a holy people
that Yahweh had delivered them from Egypt and brought them to Himself (Exo.
19:3-6).
people wearing closed skirts and robes, not rectangular poncho-like garments. The four corners (lit.,
wings or extremities) were probably either the points on scalloped hems or the places at which
vertical bands of embroidery met the hems. Both styles, sometimes with tassels attached, are visible
in ancient Near Eastern murals. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy in The JPS Torah Commentary
(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), p. 204.
14
The covenantal signicance of the tassels on the wings of the garment
suggests that the word wing has a symbolic meaning, especially since the tassels
are specically commanded to be blue one of the most prominent colors of the
tabernacle and the garments of the high priest. By putting blue on their garments
to remind them of the covenant, the Israelites would also be associating themselves
with the tabernacle and the priesthood, which again expresses their covenantal
obligation to be a holy people.
28
With such associations, I think it is legitimate to go
one step further and speculate that the word wing is used to create an link with
the cherubim in the tabernacle.
Perhaps it will help us to see the picture if we remember that the tabernacle
was a multivalent symbolic model. Included among its meanings was that of
being a model of Mt. Sinai. In other words, the tabernacle was a horizontal and
mobile version of the great mountain of the Torah. Just as Sinai was divided into
three areas the border around the bottom of the mountain dened the forbidden
area; a place half-way up the mountain where the elders sat before God was the
area to which specially appointed men could come; the top of the mountain where
God revealed Himself to Moses was the most exclusive area the tabernacle also
was divided into three areas, the courtyard, the holy place, and the most holy
place. Again, just as Moses received the tablets of the Ten Words at the top of the
mountain, he placed them in the ark of the covenant in the most holy place. Other
associations also show that the tabernacle was a horizontal model of Mt. Sinai.
Mt. Sinai itself points elsewhere eliciting Eden, the garden on the mountain
top where God placed Adam and revealed Himself to him. To borrow an image
from a time later than Eden, in the original creation there was a mountain that
reached unto heaven. Babel was its counterfeit. Sinful mankind, led by Nimrod,
attempted to make their own tower to heaven, their own garden sanctuary. God
destroyed Nimrods tower, but in the days of Moses gave Israel a true mountain to
heaven, a partially restored Garden of Eden. In that sense, the tabernacle fullls
the vision Jacob saw of a ladder to heaven with the angels of God ascending and
descending on it (Gen. 28:12-15).
28 In addition to the fact that the cords had to be blue, it was probably also the case that they were
made of wool in order to be dyed. Tigay writes: Numbers 15:38 requires that a blue cord be
attached to each fringe. According to early rabbinic sources, the blue cord is made of wool while
the other cords are linen. In other words, the tassels are made of shaatnez, the combination of
fabrics forbidden in verse 11 [of Deu. 22]. This interpretation most likely stems from biblical times,
since it is highly unlikely that the rabbis would have initiated a practice contradicting a biblical
prohibition. It is, in other words, an exception to the general rule stated in verse 11. According to
Jacob Milgrom, the purpose of this exception is suggested by the fact that shaatnez characterized
the priestly garments; hence, wearing these tassels reminds every Israelite of the duty to strive for
holiness like the priests, to become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6). Ibid.
Assuming the correctness of the early rabbinic sources, here is a case in which there is a blatant
contradiction in the law intentionally made for the purpose of theological instruction.
15
The winged cherubim of the Garden of Eden were replaced by the winged
cherubim in the most holy place, situated on the ark of the covenant where they
symbolically guarded the covenant. The picture we have is that of cherubim who
are always looking on the covenant with their wings extended. When the Israelites
are told that the blue tassels on their wings are to remind them of the
commandments and their obligation to be holy, it would have been natural to
make the association with the blue tabernacle and its cherubim looking on the
tablets of the Ten Words of the covenant.
It is also signicant that the wings of the garment are rst referred to in a
passage that warns about idolatry as playing the harlot (Num. 15:39) the sin
Israel committed with the Moabites in Numbers 25, which we are reminded of
obliquely in Deuteronomy 23:3-6. Worshiping other gods was the most basic and
total rejection of the covenant with Yahweh, so living daily with the blue tassels
visible to all was to remind the Israelites to be faithful as Yahwehs priestly people.
In this way, the use of wings in 22:30 alluding to the covenant memorial ties in
with the emphasis on the assembly of Yahweh in 23:1-8 and serves, I believes, as
an introduction to it.
The Sin of Ham
Another story would almost certainly occur to an ancient reader of the text,
especially if he was taking the time to meditate on the contents. It would be
obvious that the expression uncover his fathers wing refers to the fathers robe,
and so recalling the famous story of Ham removing his fathers robe would
naturally come to mind (Gen. 9:20-27). Although this story is often understood as a
story about sexual impropriety, it is probably rather a story about seizing power.
The robe of the father was the symbol of his power and authority. What is not
necessarily clear to the English reader of the story is the signicance of the robe in
the story of Noah and Ham. Genesis 9:23 in almost all English translations
suggests that Shem and Japheth took a garment, as if they picked up the nearest
robe at hand. But the Hebrew clearly says they took the garment, as if we are
supposed to know something about the robe they took. The story is, thus, rather
indirect, but it apparently goes like this. First, Noah took off his robe in his tent
and went to sleep because of the inuence of the wine he drank. Ham at some
point went into his fathers tent and stole his robe of authority, leaving his father
naked. When Ham told his brothers what he had done, they took the robe from
him and restored it to their father.
Apparently Ham was attempting to force his father into early retirement, so
to speak, and take over his place of authority. If his brothers had joined the
conspiracy, Noah would have been dethroned and his sons would have taken over
by force before he himself stepped down. Thus, even though this story probably
16
has nothing to do with sexual sin, the language of Deuteronomy 22:30 might still
evoke the image of an infamous uncovering of the fathers garment.
29
Furthermore, if the sin of Reuben includes an attempt to claim authority for
himself, an allusion to Ham might suggest that sexual sins like Reubens were
usually matters of power struggles. This provides another cultural reason in the
context of ancient polygamy for the promulgation of this sort of law.
The Motivation for Deuteronomy 22:30
If I am correct in the above exposition that Moses intends his hearers and
readers to recall the story of Reubens sin, while also remembering the previous
related laws in Leviticus, the law of the wings of the garment in Numbers 15:37-39,
and the story of Ham, there is one more story that an astute reader might be
expected to recall. That story, moreover, suggests a motive for Moses to have given
this law in the rst place. I am referring to the story in Numbers 16 of the rebellion
of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
Two things about that story especially stand out, matters that some modern
readers might not remember, but that Moses himself certainly remembered. First,
while Korah was a Levite, Dathan and Abiram, the two other leaders of the
rebellion were both from the tribe of Reuben. Second, the story of the rebellion of
Korah and the sons of Reuben immediately followed the law of the tassels on the
wings of the robe.
What does that mean? If we read Numbers carefully, it clearly implies that
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram perversely interpreted the gift of the covenant
memorial tassels. Though it is true that law of the tassels declared that every
Israelite was holy (15:37-41, especially 15:40) and the blue tassels made all the
Israelites priestly guardians of Gods law, to infer from this that Moses and Aaron
had no special place as leaders of the people was foolish rebellion. It appears that
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, noting that they wore blue priestly clothing and
that they were counted as cherubim, as also the rest of Israel, and that they were
appointed to guard the holiness of Yahweh, falsely concluded that the hierarchical
priestly system of the Torah was an imposition of Moses and Aaron, based upon
unholy ambition to be great which is to say that the Reubenite leaders imputed
to Moses and Aaron the kind of motives they themselves cherished.
It was indeed Korah, of the tribe of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram of the tribe
of Reuben who were ambitious, but their resentment against Gods anointed was
contagious. Therefore, even though Gods miraculous judgment against the rebels
29 See: James B. Jordan, Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis, in Tactics of
Christian Resistance, ed. Gary North (Tyler, Texas: Geneva Divinity School Press, 1983), pp. 38-80,
especially 48-52. Of course, literally speaking it was Noah who uncovered himself, but that was in
the privacy of his own tent. Ham had to invade Noahs privacy to see him uncovered, so in a sense,
Ham uncovered Noah.
17
should have resolved the issue of the authority of Moses and Aaron, it did not. The
next day the congregation blamed Moses and Aaron for the deaths of the rebel
leaders (Num. 16:41), leading to another judgment (Num. 16:49). Then, because of
the lingering bitterness in Israel, Yahweh required leaders of all the tribes to bring a
rod to the tabernacle (17:1-7). The rod of the man chosen by Yahweh would sprout,
thereby indicating Yahwehs special favor for that man and his tribe. When the rod
of Aaron blossomed with owers and ripe almonds, the rest of Israel feared that
they were going to be consumed by Gods wrath and sought help from Moses
(Num. 17:12-13), thus bringing to a conclusion the proud rebellion instituted by
Kohath and the Reubenites.
When we consider the narrative of chapters 16-17 in the larger context of
Israels wilderness wandering and the literary account of the book of Numbers, we
realize the central signicance of the story. The climactic rebellion of the Israelites
in Numbers 14, of course, is the most important single example of Israels unbelief
and rebellion against Yahweh. But from that time until the nal year of the
wilderness wandering (Num. 20 ff.), there is one and only one story in the book of
Numbers: the story of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and its
consequences.
30
It is as if to say that the rebellion of Korah and the Reubenites
reveals the true nature of the people of Israel as a whole and the reasons for their
being disciplined in the wilderness. The importance of the Reubenite rebellion is
further reinforced by Moses drawing attention to it again later in Numbers.
Reuben, Israels rstborn, the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, the family
of the Hanochites; of Pallu, the family of the Palluites; of Hezron, the
family of the Hezronites; of Carmi, the family of the Carmites. These
are the families of the Reubenites, and those who were numbered of
them were 43,730. The son of Pallu: Eliab. The sons of Eliab: Nemuel
and Dathan and Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram who
were called by the congregation, who contended against Moses and
against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against
Yahweh, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up
along with Korah, when that company died, when the re devoured
250 men, so that they became a warning. The sons of Korah,
however, did not die. (Num. 26:5-11)
30 The other material in chapters 15-19 are law, not narrative. The rebellion at Kadesh in chapter 14
is followed by laws in chapter 15. The story of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and its
consequences in chapters 16-17 is followed by laws in chapters 18-19. Then, in chapter 20, when we
read another story of the wilderness wandering, we are already in the nal year. The whole 38
years of wandering is thus characterized by stories of rebellion. First the rejection of the land (14),
then the rebellion of the Reubenites (16-17), and nally the rebellion of Moses and Aaron (20), the
tragic end of the great leaders lives.
18
As the above makes clear, the sons of Korah did not join their father in his
rebellion against Moses and, ultimately, Yahweh Himself. They were faithful. But
the leaders of Reuben were rebels and their families were consumed with them.
Unlike the rest of the tribe of Levi and the family of Korah, the other Israelite tribes
continued to harbor the hostility provoked by Dathan and Abiram. For Moses,
clearly this rebellion was one of the most important instances of unbelief in the
whole 40 years in the wilderness, second only to the rebellion of Numbers 14.
My conclusion about Moses motive in including a law like Deuteronomy
22:30 is that Moses believed it was important to keep the tribe of Reuben in its
place and use Reubens sin in Genesis as a reminder to the tribes of Gods
judgement. As it says in Numbers 26:11, they became a warning. The well-
known stories of the rebellion in the wilderness led by Reuben would naturally
occur to the Israelites through Moses allusion to the story in Genesis.
This may sound far-fetched to some modern readers. Again, we have to ask,
would an ancient Israelite have made these connections? Did Moses intend these
connections? I believe Moses certainly intended these connections, but lets
consider the ancient reader. Perhaps on a rst reading of Deuteronomy 22:30 our
hypothetical reader would miss the multiple layers I have suggested.
31
But as he
continues to read Deuteronomy, he will notice other verses.
What will he think, for example, when he reads chapter 27? In this chapter,
Moses directed the Israelites to conduct a special covenant renewal ceremony
when they entered the promised land. Six tribes were to stand on Mount Gerizim
to bless the people (Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin) and six
tribes were to stand on Mount Ebal to curse (Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan,
and Naphtali) (Deu. 27:11-13). The Levites shout out 12 curses and all the people
answer Amen. One of the twelve curses is almost an exact repetition of
Deuteronomy 22:30. Of all the things that could be cursed and of all the sins that
could be emphasized, we have to ask why this sin?
32
Obviously, Moses is making
another allusion to the story of Reuben and doing so in the most emphatic manner
possible, with the whole nation pronouncing a curse on anyone who imitates the
sin of Reuben.
Then, the ancient reader of Deuteronomy encounters another striking verse
when he comes to chapter 33 verse 6, though for the modern reader there is a
translation problem.
31 I do believe that the use of the word wing in 22:30 would be enough of a surprise that an
ancient reader would begin to ask questions about what the verse is saying. It is not a long jump to
begin to consider the various layers of meaning.
32 The same question may be asked of the other sins on the list and of the list as a whole. The sins
on the list seem to be chosen in general as sins typical of the Canaanites in the land, whose inuence
Moses warned against.
19
May Reuben live and not die,
Nor his men be few. (NASB)
Let Reuben live, and not die,
but let his men be few. (ESV)
This is actually not an entirely modern problem. Even the LXX translation of
the Bible into Greek misinterprets the Hebrew.
Let Rouben live, and not die out,
And let him be many in number.
33

As is clear above, the New American Standard Version, like the LXX,
interprets the verse as a blessing. The words, Nor let his men be few, mean,
obviously, let his descendants be numerous. That is the kind of blessing God
promised to Abraham and it might seem appropriate here at the beginning of the
blessing of the tribes, for, as Driver notes, the general tone of the chapter is very
positive.
34
However, the Hebrew text as it stands seems to clearly pronounce a
curse on Reuben. In fact the thought of Deuteronomy 33:6 is close enough to the
Jacobs curse in Genesis 49:4 that Moses words might be regarded as an
interpretation.
The phrase could even be taken as an interpretation of Jacobs words
in verse 4 there, you shall excel no longer, construing excel as
exceed, abound.
35
In the history of Reuben, this curse came to fulllment, as the tribe dwindled
both in number and in importance. But we can imagine a reader in the days of
Joshua being surprised at the statement and then reecting on Reuben and his tribe
from the stories of Genesis to Numbers. The allusions to the sin of Reuben in
Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20 would then be seen as reminders of the judgment
33 Deuteronomy (Provisional Edition) in A New English Translation of the Septuagint translated by
Melvin K. H. Peters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 41
34 In his words, Compared, as a whole, with the Blessing of Jacob, the Blessing of Moses may be
said to be pitched in a higher key; the tone is more buoyant; the afuence, or other distinctive
character, of the various tribes is portrayed in more glowing colours: ease, tranquillity, and
contentment are the predominant characteristics of the age. S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy in The
International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), p. 386.
35 Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy in The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society, 1996), p. 322.
20
pronounced against a tribe that led a rebellion against Moses and Aaron, a tribe
whose curse would weigh heavily upon it.
Multiple allusions to Reubens sin and then a curse pronounced on the tribe
of Reuben in a context that pronounces blessings on the other tribes provokes
questions that only nd an answer in the history of the Reubenites rebellion in the
book of Numbers. It is not at all far-fetched to suggest an ancient reader would
have made these connections. On the contrary, it is hard to imagine a serious
reader not noticing at least the connections suggested above.
Conclusion
We have seen here that in a relatively straightforward statement of apodictic
law, we have multiple historical allusions, or at least presupposed background
knowledge, which give this law a rich and complex meaning which could not be
read from the surface of the text alone. The sins of Ham, Canaan, and Reuben
reverberate in the background, most especially Reuben, though the double
association may imply similarity between the two rebellions. Israels special
calling to be a holy nation, a priestly people, is suggested in the use of the word
wing and this provides a subtle link with the next verses and their concern with
the assembly of Yahweh, which could be dened as the winged nation, the
cherub nation. Uncovering the fathers wing, then, is undermining his honor as
a member of the winged nation, the most profound disrespect a man could offer
to his father, as Reuben did to Jacob. Perhaps this could also be seen as what the
Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, attempted to do to Moses and Aaron.
21
Chapter Two
Deuteronomy 23:1
One wounded by crushing, or cut in the member shall not enter into
the assembly of Yahweh.
36

The translation of this verse varies in different English versions. However,
the basic idea is clear enough: a eunuch is not to be admitted into the assembly of
Yahweh.
37
Why not? An ancient Israelite who was asked this question would have
a ready answer. There are two basic reasons involved. First, that the Israelites
were chosen to be a nation that bears fruit abundantly, which puts a Eunich out of
the Israelite community, the holy assembly. Second, the laws for sacrices and
priesthood demand physical perfection, wholeness as a sign and symbol of
holiness. Neither of these reasons is specied here, but the second is especially
clear, given similar rules in other parts of the law.
Sacricial Animals and Priests
To begin with the second reason, we need to emphasize that for the
assembly of Yahweh, the supreme concern is that it must be holy (Ex. 19:6; 22:31;
Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:6-8, 26; Num. 15:40; Deu. 14:2, 21; 23:14; 28:9). Thus, two
sections of the law in Leviticus are obviously relevant. First, there is the law about
which animals may be offered to Yahweh. Second, there is a law about
qualications for priestly service. Both laws speak of the kind of injury or defect
referred to in Deuteronomy 23:1 and so form part of the presupposed legal context
for this law.
And whosoever offereth a sacrice of peace-offerings unto Yahweh to
accomplish a vow, or for a freewill-offering, of the herd or of the ock,
it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a running sore, or scurvy, or
scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto Yahweh, nor make an offering
by re of them upon the altar unto Yahweh. Either a bullock or a
lamb that hath anything superuous or lacking in his parts, that
mayest thou offer for a freewill-offering; but for a vow it shall not be
36 This is a slightly edited version of Youngs Literal Translation, along lines suggested by Keil and
Delitzsch.
37 Tigay suggests there were two sorts of emasculation. These are two types of emasculation, the
rst accomplished by destroying the testes, the second by some type of castration. It is not clear
whether this law applies to all who have these conditions or only to those who acquired them
voluntarily. Op. Cit. p. 211.
22
accepted. That which hath [its stones] bruised, or crushed, or broken,
or cut, ye shall not offer unto Yahweh; neither shall ye do thus in your
land. Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall ye offer the bread of
your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, there is
a blemish in them: they shall not be accepted for you. (Lev. 22:21-25)
Why these animals may not be offered is stated in verses 20 and 21, and
reiterated in verse 25. There is a blemish in them. That is, they are not perfect as
God created them it must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in
it. Defective animals, including specically animals with stones crushed, are
not appropriate as representatives or substitutes for Gods image, man. An
Israelite in Joshuas day reading the law in Deuteronomy 23:1 would naturally
recall Leviticus 22:24 and its context (22:17-25) and supply the same sort of reasons
for excluding a eunuch from the assembly.
That the logic of the law with regard to animals would apply to men as well
is clearly seen in reference to the priests. Among the Israelites, the Levites and the
family of Aaron were the appointed representatives. Therefore no one from the
tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron with a physical defect
38
could draw near to
Yahweh.
And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout
their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer
the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish,
he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a at
nose, or anything superuous, or a man that is broken-footed, or
broken-handed, or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in
his eye, or is scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; no man of
the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to
offer the offerings of Yahweh made by re: he hath a blemish; he
shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the
bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy: only he shall
not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath
a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I am Yahweh who
sanctieth them. So Moses spake unto Aaron, and to his sons, and
unto all the children of Israel. (Lev. 21:16-24)
38 The same Hebrew word for blemish or defect is used both of animals and men. In the law of
Moses, c: appears in the following verses: Lev 21:1718, 21, 23; 22:2021, 25; Num 19:2; Deut 15:21;
17:1.
23
The law for the priests, especially in association with the law of the sacrices,
provides theological background for the law in Deuteronomy 23:1. The key is the
notion of priesthood. In other words, just as the priests functioned in Israel as
representatives for the whole nation of Israel, so the Israelites as a nation of priests
(Exo. 19:6) represented mankind. Again, just as animals were to represent men and
function as substitutes and representatives for them, so the priestly nation has a
special place among all the nations of the world as representatives of the nations,
praying for them and offering sacrice for them. They must, therefore, be holy not
only in lifestyle, but even physically to represent mankind as Gods image. The
must be whole the symbolic dimension of being Gods image as well as holy
the ethical and ceremonial dimension of being Gods image.
However, it is important to note that in the law of Moses, the logic of the
matter is actually presented in the opposite order. It is not rst animals and then
man, priests. On the contrary, the law that species that the priests must be whole
to approach Yahweh precedes the law concerning the animals. Animals offered to
Yahweh must be without defect because, like the priests, they come close to
Yahweh. They represent the offerer like the priest represents the offerer. Priest and
offering come into the presence of the holy Yahweh. Therefore nothing that might
be regarded as a blemish or as corruption may be seen in them.
Why not? The reasons is clear, Biblically: defects of any sort remind of the
death and the curse. It is as if the defect reminds God of sin and the curse. In other
words, a blemish or corruption in the body of the priest would function as the
exact opposite of the covenant memorial that reminds God of His covenant grace
(Gen. 9:12-17). The laws here suggest the following parallel: just as when God sees
the rainbow, He remembers His covenant grace, so also when He sees a blemish,
He remembers mans sin and the curse.
I hasten to add an important qualication that a modern reader might miss.
Ceremonial wholeness and corruption are not regarded as a soteriological
categories. As can be seen from Lev. 21:22, laws about physical defects do not
imply that a man disqualied as a priest was also to be excluded from the blessings
of salvation. In fact, the law explicitly addresses the matter, specifying that a
descendant of Aaron who was not qualied to serve as a priest was still allowed to
partake of the bread of his God. This included the most holy things (Lev. 21:22).
Thus, priestly service as such and the blessings of salvation, symbolized by the
holy food, are distinguished.
Since Israelites in Moses day would have this background in mind when
they read the law in Deuteronomy, they would not assume that a man who was
physically defective would be excluded from salvation, only that he would not be
qualied to be a priestly representative in the assembly of Yahweh. The priestly
nation, like the priests themselves and the sacrices offered to God, had to be
24
perfect. But they represented other peoples and nations that were far from perfect.
Even so, Gentiles who trusted in God could be saved, though they could not
become members of the assembly of Israel unless they were circumcised and
went through the whole process of joining the Israelites.
39

Abraham and Circumcision
The other background for this law is in the meaning of the people of Israel as
the seed people. I think an ancient Israelite meditating on the law would make the
association, but perhaps in a manner different from a modern reader. For modern
men, the simple physical fact that a eunuch cannot have children is enough to
draw attention to the inappropriateness of him being a member of the assembly of
Yahweh. But an ancient reader is likely to have made another association that is
related.
First, he might note that of all the physical defects listed in Leviticus, only the
defect related to child-bearing is mentioned in Deuteronomy. This is especially
appropriate in a section of the law related to the Seventh Word, but it is worth
noting in passing. Second, the ancient reader would certainly note that the word
eunuch itself is not used here as it is in some modern translations but
rather expressions describing how one becomes a eunuch. This is signicant, I
believe, because the reference to the male member being cut off could be
associated with the ceremony of circumcision. But was it? Yes! I believe that I can
show in the ancient mind that it was associated.
We might not relate the two ideas, but the apostle Paul himself shows us that
the association between cutting off the male organ entirely and circumcision was a
natural association, even though he refers to it sarcastically.
But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being
persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I
wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! (Gal.
5:11-12)
If they like circumcision so much, Paul says, let them cut all the way, not just
the foreskin. Though he is speaking ironically, Pauls language here is grounded in
the nature of circumcision itself, for circumcision is, in fact, a sort of ceremonial
and symbolic castration. Again, though this may not be obvious to a modern
39 Here, qualications for men and women were different and the process would have been
somewhat complicated after the conquest, since all the families of Israel had already been given
specic plots of land. A male convert could be circumcised and presumably join one of the tribes,
but he would not receive a plot of land, unless perhaps he married into an Israelite family. Still, it
would have been theoretically possible for a Gentile to become an Israelite.
25
reader, the story of the gift of circumcision as the sign of the covenant points to this
meaning.
Lets recall the story of Genesis and the gift of circumcision. The book of
Genesis repeatedly emphasizes that Abraham and Sarah were both too old to bear
children. As far as childbirth was concerned, they were both dead. So, the birth
of Isaac was a miracle. In the book of Hebrews, this miracle of an elderly man and
woman having a child is referred to in in exactly that language.
By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed when she
was past age, since she counted him faithful who had promised:
wherefore also there sprang of one, and him as good as dead, so
many as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand, which is by
the sea-shore, innumerable. (Heb. 11:11-12)
In Greek it is very clear that the one who was as good as dead was
Abraham. He was as good as dead because he was too old to have a son.
40
It was
at this time and to a man in this condition that God gave the covenant sign of
circumcision.
And ye shall be circumcised in the esh of your foreskin; and it shall
be a sign of a covenant between me and you. (Gen. 17:11)
Also, it was specically at this impossible time that Yahweh renewed the
promise of descendants without number and changed Abrams name to Abraham.
God also promised that Sarai who was also given a new name, Sarah would
bear the covenant heir. The story reects Gods perfect but strange faithfulness.
Yahweh keeps His covenant promises in a way that boggles the imagination. He
waits till Abram and Sarai are physically dead, as far as childbirth is concerned,
and then gives them new names and a new ceremony connected with the promised
child. He tells Abram to cut off the skin of the organ of reproduction. Abram cuts
off precisely what he needs to bear seed because the organ for bearing seed is
already dead.
The ceremony of circumcision given in this historical and theological context,
then, apparently functions as symbolic castration. To understand this lets go
through it step by step. First, consider that in this ceremony, the mans foreskin is
cut off. Why? We need to remember that typically the part symbolized the whole.
Thus, cutting off the foreskin would have been a symbolic confession that
Abraham is impotent and cannot bear seed for the kingdom of God. For Abraham,
40 His own father apparently had Abraham at a much later age, but that is not apparently relevant.
In Abrahams case, he was too old to have a child.
26
circumcision was a ceremonial recognition of his actual physical condition, as well
as his spiritual need for Yahwehs blessing. For those of his household who were
still young enough to bear children, it would have been a confession of their
spiritual condition.
Second, we need to ask if they would have understood the meaning of the
ceremony. If one thinks about it and given the pain involved, we can be sure
they did it seems relatively obvious. Certainly Abraham and those around him
would have asked themselves, why this ceremony? What does it mean to cut off
the foreskin? Why is this ceremony connected with the promise of innumerable
heirs? Why is the promise and the ceremony given to Abram when neither he or
Sarai can bear children? All of these questions are inescapable and considering
them all together leads rather ineluctably in one direction. The result of
considering these questions would have been a theology of circumcision as
ceremonial death, a confession that only Yahweh can give the covenant heir.
This is the logic: Abram was not able to bear seed because he was dead and
Sarai was also dead. What should be done? The symbolic solution is to, cut off the
dead instrument so that a seed may be born. (We see why Abraham believed in
resurrection.) From the time of Abraham onward, every child born of a
circumcised Israelite father would be regarded symbolically as a miracle child like
Isaac, born of a dead father through Yahwehs wonder-working power.
If anyone was slow to remember Abraham, the next verses in Deuteronomy
23:2-3, reminding Israelites of the illegitimate births of Moab and Ben-ammi, would
surely have triggered the association, for the story of Lots sons is sandwiched
between the story of the covenant sign in Genesis 17 and the fulllment of the
promise in Genesis 21. Abraham was circumcised (Gen. 17). God visited him,
reiterating the promise (Gen. 18). Then, God judged Sodom and Gomorrah, saving
Lot (Gen. 19). God protected Sarah from Abimelech (Gen. 20). And nally,
Yahweh blessed Abraham and Sarah with a child (Gen. 21). The gap between the
promise and fulllment is lled with the story of Lot. The two stories therefore
would be associated in the minds of an ancient Israelite. If one missed the implied
background of Deuteronomy 23:1 on his rst reading, Deuteronomy 23:2-3 would
provoke him to think again.
For the ancient Israelites, of course, the story of Abraham and the gift of the
covenant sign of circumcision would have been among the most famous and most
popular stories in the Bible. When Moses preached Deuteronomy to them, the
story of Abraham would stand out for special reasons beyond the fact that the only
Bible they had would have been Genesis to Numbers. They were about to enter
the land promised to Abraham in Genesis 12, four hundred years previously. With
their own eyes and in their own lives, they were witnessing the same strange and
wonderful faithfulness Yahweh had shown to Abraham.
27
Moses and Circumcision
That Israelites saw circumcision as a sort of ceremonial castration seems to be
conrmed by another story, the story of the circumcision of Moses son.
And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that Yahweh met
him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a int, and cut off
the foreskin of her son, and touched his feet; and she said, Surely a
bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone. Then she
said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.
(Exo. 4:24-26)
This is a mysterious story, but certain aspects are apparent. First, since Moses
had not not circumcised his son, either Moses himself or his son was going to be
cut off from the covenant people in the most literal way possible.
41
Yahweh was
going to put him to death for violating the most basic covenantal form, the
covenant-entrance ceremony of circumcision. Second, circumcision is a bloody
ceremony, part of the larger sacricial system in which blood is shed as a symbol of
the death of the offerer. In the immediate context, circumcision as a blood sacrice
points to the passover (Exo. 4:22-23). Circumcision, like other aspects of the
sacricial system, then, signies death through the shedding of blood.
The obvious connection with passover here makes clear to the modern reader
what might not be apparent to us from Genesis 17. However, an ancient reader of
Genesis 17 would have immediately noted the aspect of ceremonial death involved
in a blood-shedding covenant ceremony. Though we might miss the literary
associations, it should be clear that the incident with Moses and its connection with
passover shows that passing over rather than judging depends upon seeing the
blood of the sacrice. Yahweh passed over Gershom or Moses when He saw the
blood just as He would pass over the houses of the Israelites who had smeared
blood on their doors.
Returning then, to Deuteronomy 23:1, to speak of castration in a law about
who is qualied to be a member of the assembly of Yahweh would certainly have
provoked the meditative reader to recall the stories of Abraham and Moses and to
consider the meaning of circumcision as symbolic castration a confession that
the holy seed could only come through the miracle of Gods special grace.
41 As James Jordan points out, in the immediate previous context, it is the rstborn of Egypt who
are referred to. In verse 24, the him is not specied. Thus, the he is ambiguous. Jordan takes it
to be Gershom, Moses rstborn son. It seems to me to be better to take it in context as Moses. But
the basic point does not change either way. See: James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant: An
Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics), pp. 243-260.
28
What does that mean for our context? It means that the law is ironic in a
sense. A man who was actually castrated could not enter the assembly of Yahweh.
Only a man who was symbolically castrated could enter. The one who was
symbolically castrated had died through circumcision, confessing that he was not
worthy to bear fruit for Gods kingdom. The one who was physically castrated
was physically unable to fulll his responsibility as a member of the covenant
community and was excluded from the assembly. The irony of the law remains,
for by drawing attention to castration, the law reminds the Israelites that none of
them are truly qualied, that they only stand in the assembly of Yahweh by grace.
Conclusion
The law excluding the eunuch from the assembly of Yahweh was intended
not only to exclude those who were actual eunuchs, but also to remind the
Israelites of story of the eunuch Abram and the sign of circumcision, by which
every man in Israel confessed his unworthiness to be a seed-bearer for the holy
nation. The irony of Gods grace would have been apparent to anyone who
meditated on the deeper meaning of the law.
Also, importantly, the law does not exclude eunuchs from salvation. Isaiah
later makes this clear when he writes the following.
Thus says Yahweh,
Preserve justice and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come
And My righteousness to be revealed.
How blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who takes hold of it;
Who keeps from profaning the sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to Yahweh say,
Yahweh will surely separate me from His people.
Nor let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
For thus says Yahweh,
To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
29
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.
42
(Isa.
56:1-5)
42 I am sure it is not necessary to point to the irony of the word cut off in this context, but I did it
anyway.
30
Chapter Three
Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard (mazmer) shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even
to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of
Yahweh.
43
The translation bastard here for mazmer, common in older translations and
implied even in new ones which substitute the less offensive one of illegitimate
birth (NKJV), is almost certainly wrong, even though the Hebrew word is
admittedly difcult. The LXX translation, referring to the child of a prostitute, is
also incorrect. Rather, Talmudic exegesis is to be preferred in its identifying the
mazmer as one who is born of a forbidden union.
44

Talmudic scholars were correct to note that the idea of forbidden unions is
introduced in Deuteronomy 22:30, where a son is forbidden to marry his fathers
former wife. Other forbidden unions are outlined in Leviticus 18, but the law in
22:30 comes rather abruptly into the context. Its insertion is probably for the
purpose of making a connection between Deuteronomy 22:30-23:14 and Leviticus
18, as well as provoking our historical attention through an allusion to Reuben. As
in Leviticus, the concern is with the holiness of the assembly of Yahweh. The
priestly people must be holy to approach Yahweh, just as the sacricial animals
used to represent the priestly people must be unblemished and whole to be used as
substitutes for the holy people.
The expression even to the tenth generation probably means, forever.
45
It
does not seem to mean until the tenth generation, as if to imply that from the 11
th
generation admission to the assembly would be possible. But this is an alternative
approach to the text that we will consider. On the surface, what the law appears to
be saying is that a child born of a forbidden union could never be a member of the
assembly of Yahweh. But there are passages in the law itself, as well as in the
history which both precedes and follows the law, which suggest that this is a
profoundly mistaken reading. An intelligent reader in Joshuas day would have
43 Unless otherwise stated, translations here are from the American Standard Version. However, I
have changed its Jehovah to Yahweh, which is generally considered a more accurate rendering
of the tetragrammaton.
44 The ESV and the NRSV both follow this understanding.
45 The exact expression is only used twice in the entire Old Testament, but the addition of c::
(forever) in verse 3 seems to remove any uncertainty. Nehemiah 13:1 conrms this reading, On
that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found
written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God forever . . . .
31
recalled numerous other passages in his quest to understand this verse that would
result in a somewhat surprising interpretation.
History Preceding the Law
To explain what I mean, lets begin with the history in Genesis. Readers in
Moses day, cognizant as they would have been of Israels history, would have
noticed immediately what a modern reader might not think of that 23:2 links
directly with the story of Tamars incest with her father-in-law Judah. This is a
famous incident, one that almost rivals or perhaps more than rivals the
infamous story of Lots daughters, alluded to in Deuteronomy 23:3ff., who seduced
their father and became the mothers of Ammon and Moab. Though Lots
daughters committed incest, they were both virgins at the time, and in ancient
Israel that counted for something. However, Tamar, was not a virgin. In fact, she
was the former wife of two of her father-in-laws, sons. Like Lots daughters, she
seduced her man and became pregnant.
Tamars union with Judah belongs explicitly to the class of forbidden unions
(Lev. 18:15). In fact, given her status in Judahs family she was guilty of a form of
adultery as well as incest. On any understanding of the Hebrew word mazmer
Tamars children should be excluded, for her union with Judah was forbidden and
adulterous. The children would be illegitimate from any and every perspective.
This should mean (or should seem to mean), then, on a literal or narrow
interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:2 that Judahs sons by Tamar could not belong to
the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation, which, as we have shown,
probably means forever.
Passages in the Law
But remarkably this is not the way the law describes them. Descendants of
Perez and Zerah Tamars twin sons are counted as the legitimate sons of
Judah and are included in the assembly of Yahweh (Num. 26:20-22) with no
questions asked. Thus, in both the history previous to Deuteronomy and in the
law included in Numbers, we are confronted with a case that seems to present a
striking exception to the rule in 23:2. How are we to understand this? One
possible way might be to consider the curse even to the tenth generation as only
till the tenth generation, though this seems contrary to the natural sense of verse
3. But would that approach actually help? Was the Exodus nine or ten generations
after Tamar, so that the generation to enter the land was the eleventh or later?
There are some difcult details here. If we consider a generation to be 40
years, then there would be approximately 10 generations in the 430 years (Gal.
3:17) from Abraham to Sinai, leaving us rather short on generations from Judah to
Sinai. If we consider a generation to be 30 years, then there would be about 14
32
generations from Abraham to Sinai, which would get us close enough to having 10
generations from Judah to Sinai, at least in terms of the raw numbers.
Passages After the Law
How does that work out when we look at the recorded genealogy in 1
Chronicles? Below is the list from Judah to David (1 Chron. 2:3-16). I add markers
to count the generations beginning from Perez and Zerah, the sons of Tamar,
considering them as generation [1].
2:3. The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah; which three were
born unto him of Shuas daughter the Canaanitess. And Er, Judahs
rst-born, was wicked in the sight of Yahweh; and he slew him.
2:4. And Tamar his daughter-in-law bare him Perez and Zerah [1]. All
the sons of Judah were ve.
2:5 The sons of Perez: Hezron, and Hamul [2].
2:6 And the sons of Zerah: Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol,
and Dara; ve of them in all [2].
2:7 And the sons of Carmi [?]: Achar, the troubler of Israel, who
committed a trespass in the devoted thing.
2:8 And the sons of Ethan [2]: Azariah [3].
2:9 The sons also of Hezron [2], that were born unto him: Jerahmeel,
and Ram, and Chelubai [3].
2:10 And Ram [3] begat Amminadab [4], and Amminadab begat
Nahshon [5], prince of the children of Judah;
2:11 and Nahshon [5] begat Salma [6], and Salma begat Boaz [7],
2:12 and Boaz begat Obed [8], and Obed begat Jesse [9];
2:13 and Jesse begat his rst-born Eliab [10], and Abinadab the
second, and Shimea the third,
2:14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fth,
2:15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh [10];
2:16 and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of
Zeruiah: Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.
In this genealogy, we have 10 generations from Judah to David, a period of
about 600 years, making one generation about 60 years, which is rather unlikely.
Comparing 1 Chronicles with other genealogies, it seems that there may be persons
left out of the list here. Perhaps the genealogy is shorted to get the round gure 10
from Judah to David, suggesting that David is the perfect realization of Judah and
the ideal representative of the tribes royal lineage.
33
However, the genealogy from Perez to Nahshon seems to work considered as
a full genealogy, for there are ve generations for a period of about 200 years,
giving 40 years per generation.
Perez to Herzon (2:5)
Herzon to Ram (2:9)
Ram to Amminadab (2:10)
Amminadab to Nahshon (2:10)
If this is correct, the generations of the Exodus, wilderness wandering, and
conquest would not be anywhere near 10 generations from Judah. I assume that
this, or something rather close to this is the case. This means that the 10
generations in Deuteronomy 23:2 cannot be referring to the time from Tamar to the
Exodus, with the Exodus or wilderness generation being the rst generation free
from the prohibition of 23:2.
We are, therefore, back where we started faced with an apparent
contradiction in the Scripture or with literary irony. Liberal interpreters typically
write off these kinds of phenomena as the result of sloppy redactors, who were not
careful enough with their editorial work. With multiple redactors editing the text,
strange things happen. One problem with this view is that there are so many
examples of literary brilliance and amazing correspondence that we have to believe
that there were quite a few idiot-savant redactors men who are intellectually
quite dull, but who unknowingly produce something like literary miracles. At
some point, this takes more faith than believing, as I do, that the Scriptures were
inspired by God.
Conclusion
Where does this leave us? We seem to have this: the descendants of Judah
through Tamar should have been prohibited from joining the assembly of Yahweh,
but they were not. Quite to the contrary, Tamars descendant through Perez,
Nahshon, the son of Amminidab, was a prince in Israel at the time of the Exodus
(Exod 6:23; Num 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14; Ruth 4:20; 1 Chr 2:10). Thus, they were
especially blessed among the descendants of Judah, in that Nahshon was the
prince of the tribe of Judah (Num. 2:3) and as such is given special honor, both in
his position in the camp and in the order of presenting offerings (Num. 2:3; 7:12)
both of which are matters that Israelites in his day would have noted well.
I suspect that it was passages like this and there are many more that
formed Jonahs understanding of Yahweh. Jonah knew that Yahweh is a gracious
God, one who delights to forgive sins and to bless the unworthy. In fact, it was
34
precisely because Jonah knew that Yahweh is a good Shepherd that seeks the lost
sheep and receives the prodigal home again with joy that he ran away when told to
warn Nineveh of the coming judgement. He understood Gods grace, but did not
share Gods gracious attitude.
Thus, the rule of Deuteronomy 23:2 is not merely a rule. The law is ironic,
calling attention on the one hand to Yahwehs holiness and intolerance of all evil,
but on the other hand to His grace in blessing the children of Tamar and exalting
Nahshon to preeminence in Israel. A statute which seems to be so strict in fact
proclaims that Yahweh is the gracious God who forgives and receives the
unworthy. In a context which alludes to Reuben, to circumcision as the sign of the
covenant in contrast with being a physical eunuch, this kind of irony is not odd.
However, this does not mean that the rule as a rule does not stand. It does.
As the verses which follow demonstrate, exceptions to the rule reveal the grace of
God presupposed in all of the law, while at the same time, the rule itself must be
taken literally and seriously as Gods law for His people.

35
Chapter Four
Deuteronomy 23:3-6
An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of
Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them
enter into the assembly of Yahweh forever: because they met you not
with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of
Egypt, and because he hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from
Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. Nevertheless Yahweh thy God
would not hearken unto Balaam; but Yahweh thy God turned the
curse into a blessing unto thee, because Yahweh thy God loved thee.
Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for
ever.
The Surface Meaning
The reference to Ammon and Moab immediately after a law about forbidden
unions conrms the view that the mazmer in verse 2 is not simply a bastard. No
ancient Israelite hearing the law read or reading it himself would miss the
connection between verse 2 and the history in the background of verse 3. Lots
daughters committed incest with their father and became the mothers of Ammon
and Moab. Here were two whole nations descended from a forbidden union as
everyone in ancient Israel well knew.
The Torah thus confronts us with a second irony, irony no doubt intended to
provoke the interpreter to stop and read slowly, to think and rethink the meaning
of these laws. What is the irony? It takes some thought to pick it up. To begin
with, we might have expected, following verse 2, for verse 3 to read, An
Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh forever, for
they were born of a forbidden union. But that is not what it says. They are
indeed forbidden to enter forever, but the reason is entirely different.
What are we to make of this? Some interpreters have read verses 3-6 as an
application of the principle of verse 2, together with added reasons for excluding
the Ammonites and Moabites, as if Moses were saying, not only are they born of a
forbidden marriage, they also did not greet you . . . In this reading, of course,
there is no irony. But there is also little sensitivity to the ow of the text itself.
rather than assuming Moses is simply adding an extra reason for the exclusion of
the Moabites and Ammonites, we ought to ask: Why should Moses specify an
entirely different reason for their exclusion? There is an implied answer in the
context. In other words: Could it be because of the inexplicit but nevertheless
36
clear relationship between the stories of Lots daughters and Tamar? If Tamar
could be forgiven and if her descendants could enter the assembly of Yahweh with
no question, why should the descendants of Moab and Ammon be forbidden
forever? There seems to be another reason required and this law supplies it.
Lets think about the implications. Though Moab and Ammon should have
been cursed because or their origin, in fact they were cursed for an entirely
different reason. It was not because they were born of an illicit marriage, for grace
in such circumstances was possible, as the case of Tamar proves. Furthermore,
Yahweh had graciously given the tribes of Moab and Ammon their own land, as
Deuteronomy 2:8-23 shows. God even enabled the Moabites and Ammonites to
defeat the giants who had lived in their lands before them. If Moab and Ammon
had continued to trust in Yahweh, as Lot had, they would have been blessed with
Abraham. However, instead of following Lots faith, they hired Balaam to curse
Israel. Given the opportunity to bless the seed of Abraham their cousins by
bringing bread and water, they chose rather to hire Balaam to curse their cousins.
Those who curse Abraham shall be cursed. That is the logic behind these verses.
Though the story of Balaam is recounted as a story of the Moabites
attempting to curse Israel, Deuteronomy 23:3-6 seems to include the Ammonites
together with them, though the verb for hire is singular, not plural, he hired,
referring to Moab. However, the order Ammonite and Moabite perhaps
suggests that the two nations cooperated in the hiring of Balaam also. Moab was
the older brother, so placing Ammon rst and associating the two together like this
might imply that they were one in the hiring of Balaam. In that case, the singular
might not mean Moab hired, but something more like Ammon and Moab
together as one hired.
In either case, neither nation blessed the seed of Abraham and so they would
not be blessed. Indeed, since they sought to curse Abraham, they brought on
themselves the curse, expressed in the most emphatic language: Thou shalt not
seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. Israel is to regard itself
as in perpetual spiritual war with Moab and Ammon.
Ruth?
This law obviously applies to the story of Ruth. In the rst place, it applies to
Elimelech who forsook Bethlehem of Judah to go to Moab because of a famine.
The parallel with Abraham leaving the land of promise in Genesis 12:10 is entirely
ironic. Abraham was leaving a land that was under Gods covenantal judgment for
its wickedness and seeking relief in Egypt. Elimelech was living in Bethlehem, the
house of bread that should have been under Gods covenantal grace. If there
was a famine in Bethlehem, it could only mean that the tribe of Judah had sinned
37
against God and was being disciplined. The right response for Elimelech and other
leaders in Bethlehem should have been repentance.
Instead, Elimelech ed for refuge to the enemies of Israel and Israels God.
Moab and Ammon had a history of oppressing Israel that did not end in the days
of Balaam (Jud. 3:12 ff; 10:6 ff). For Elimelech to chose Moab over Judah was
precisely similar to the Israelites in the wilderness preferring Egypt over the
promised land. Accordingly, his rebellion resulted in his death and the death of his
sons.
The wonder of the story of Ruth is that this compromised and spiritually
debilitated family still, though Naomi, had enough of a testimony to inuence a
young Moabite woman so that she would believe in the God of Israel and, like
Abraham, forsake her family, her land, her past in order to go the land that God
had given to Israel there to serve Naomi and her God (Ruth 1:16-18).
The real problem in understanding Deuteronomy 23:3-6, however, presents
itself in the story of Boazs treatment of Ruth. I think we have to assume that Boaz
is both a godly man and an intelligent reader of Scripture. We should not assume
that he is ignorant of the laws of Deuteronomy 23:3-6 because we can clearly see
that he is aware of the laws of Deuteronomy 25:5-10, though it is applied in the
book of Ruth in a way we might not have anticipated from reading Deuteronomy
(Ruth 4:1-12).
If Boaz knew the law in Deuteronomy 23:3-6, why would he have sought the
peace and prosperity of Ruth as he obviously did? The answer, of course, is
provided in the genealogy of Boaz, for he was a descendant of Judah through
Perez, the son of Judah and Tamar, so he knew Yahweh had been gracious to his
family in spite of the law in Deuteronomy 23:2. Even more, he was also the son of
Salmon and his famous wife Rahab (Mat. 1:5)! Boaz, the godly leader of Bethlehem
was half Canaanite and the son of a former prostitute. With both Tamar and Rahab
in his family, Boaz would certainly have known that Gods curse against any
individual or nation allowed for repentance and salvation. Indeed, in Adam, all
men were under a curse. But God had opened a way of salvation for those who
believe, and Boaz would have been especially aware of Gods grace.
Nehemiah 13:1-3
Although the stories of Rahab in the book of Joshua and Ruth the Moabitess
in the book of Ruth corroborate my reading of the Deuteronomy 23:3-6, Nehemiah
13:1-3 might seem to challenge my approach and even endorse a racist reading
of the law. The verses in Nehemiah are unquestionably important, since they are
the only explicit reference to Deuteronomy 23:3-6 in the rest of Scripture. They
offer a partial answer to the question, How did Nehemiah understand
Deuteronomy 23:3-6? but not necessarily a full answer. In other words,
38
Nehemiah, I will argue, could not have understood the law in Deuteronomy in the
kind of harsh narrow way that some believe. His application of the law to the
circumstances of his day does not necessarily imply that he would not have been
able to see in these laws the graciousness of Yahweh that I have been emphasizing.
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the
people; and therein was found written, that an Ammonite and a
Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God for ever, because
they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but
hired Balaam against them, to curse them: howbeit our God turned
the curse into a blessing. And it came to pass, when they had heard
the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.
(Neh. 13:1-3)
It is clear that the law in Deuteronomy was understood as having a literal
sense and application, but it is equally clear that the law is being interpreted in
broader theological terms, for the application here in Nehemiah is not limited to
Ammonites and Moabites. In Nehemiahs day, it was everyone who was mixed
that was expelled from Israel. The Hebrew word {erev, ::, translated above as
mixed multitude is also translated, foreigners (NASB), and those of foreign
descent (ESV). This word is only used ve times in Scripture and seems to always
denote racially mixed people (Exod 12:38; Jer 25:20; 50:37; Ezek 30:5; Neh 13:3).
What we saw when we considered this law in Deuteronomy is that the curse
is on Ammonites and Moabites not because of their race, even though it was true
that they, like most of the tribe of Judah, were descended from a forbidden
marriage, but because they cursed the descendants of Abraham. Fundamentally, it
was hatred of Israels God that provoked Israels enemies to oppose her. This is
hinted at in the story of the Moabites tempting Israel to commit idolatry to turn
their hearts away from Him and bring His curse on them.
When we look at the larger context in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, it
becomes clear that the nations around Israel at the time cooperated together to lure
Israel away from her God. Problems with the surrounding nations arose almost
immediately when the Jews came back to the land and began to rebuild the temple.
Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the
children of the captivity were building a temple unto Yahweh, the
God of Israel; then they drew near to Zerubabbel, and to the heads of
fathers houses, and said unto them, Let us build with you; for we
seek your God, as ye do; and we sacrice unto him since the days of
Esar-haddon king of Assyria, who brought us up hither. But
39
Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers houses of
Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us in building a
house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto
Yahweh, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath
commanded us. Then the people of the land weakened the hands of
the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired
counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of
Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Ezra 4:1-5
The insincere offer of help turned to open opposition as soon as it was
rejected. The people of the land did their best to frustrate the Jews project and
stop the building of the temple. When the temple was nally completed and Ezra
came to Jerusalem to lead the Jews in the worship of God, one of the rst things he
encountered was the problem of intermarriage with the people of the land.
Now when these things were done, the princes drew near unto me,
saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not
separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according
to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the
Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians,
and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for
themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mingled
themselves with the peoples of the lands: yea, the hand of the princes
and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. (Ezra 9:1-2)
Note that the problem here is not simply that Jews have married people of
other lands. The situation here, in other words, is not parallel to that of Rahab or
Ruth. The nations are not converting to the true God. Rather, the Jews are being
inuenced to do according to their abominations. This is exactly parallel to the
situation in the book of Numbers 25, when the Moabites tempted Israel to commit
idolatry. Ezra the priest led the Jews in repentance in his prayer for the people
(Ezra 9:5 ff.), in which referred to Deuteronomy 7:1-6 which warns Israel not to
intermarry with the surrounding pagans because their will turn their hearts away
from Yahweh to serve idols. He also alludes to the words of Deuteronomy 23:6,
never seek their peace or their prosperity (Ezra 9:12).
The Jews repented and with Ezras leading they put away their foreign wives
(Ezra 10). Following James Jordans reconstruction of the chronology of Ezra and
Nehemiah, this would have been in the 7
th
year of Darius.
40
Here is the historical scenario, as I see it: Jeshua and Zerubbabel and
their associates returned to Jerusalem in the rst year of Cyrus. They
built the altar, and begin rebuilding the temple (Ezra 3). Soon,
however, they encountered opposition, which "discouraged the
people of Judah and frightened them from building" (Ezra 4:4). The
people left off working on the temple and devoted themselves to
building nice homes for themselves and working on the wall (Haggai
1). God in His mercy raised up adversaries who complained about
this wall-building, and at the beginning of his reign King Darius
forbad them to work on the wall and city (Ezra 4:21). They were not,
however, forbidden to work on the temple. Thus, God raised up the
prophet Haggai, who told them that they were in sin for not having
nished the temple rst (Haggai 1). No longer able to work on walls
and houses, the people to devoted themselves to rebuilding the
temple. This aroused more questions, and another letter was sent to
Darius asking about the temple (Ezra 5). Darius gave permission to
rebuild the temple, which was completed in the 6th year of Darius
(Ezra 6). The next year Ezra arrived, and noted that both the temple
and a rudimentary wall had been completed.
46
Thirteen years later, in the 20
th
year of Darius, Nehemiah came to rebuild the
walls of Jerusalem and spent 12 years working on the project. Then he returned to
serve Darius, but after about a year journeyed to Jerusalem a second time. It was
at this second visit that Nehemiah learned that Eliashib the priest had built a room
in the temple for Tobiah, an enemy of the Jews (Neh. 13:4-9), discovered that
Levites were not receiving their due portions (Neb. 13:10-14), found Jews breaking
the Sabbath, at least partially because of the temptations by the foreign traders
(Neh. 13:15-22), and also realized that even some of the priests had married foreign
women and deled the priesthood (Neh. 13:23-29). Indeed the children of the
mixed marriages could not speak Hebrew, implying that they had turned away
from Yahweh to the gods of the nations (Neh. 13:24).
All of this shows clearly that Nehemiahs application of the law in
Deuteronomy 23:3-6 ts with the spirit of the law as it was originally given.
Though the law referred to Moabites and Ammonites only, the reason for their
being cursed was that they had cursed the seed of Abraham. The issue was not
race, but rebellion against the true God. In Nehemiahs day, the Moabites,
Ammonites, and other foreign nations in the area hated the God of Israel and
interfered with the rebuilding of the temple and walls of Jerusalem. In other
46 James B. Jordan, The Chronology of Ezra & Nehemiah (IV), Biblical Chronology vol. 3, no. 5,
May, 1991.
41
words, they cursed the people of Israel in a manner similar to their ancestors.
Intermarrying with idolators who opposed the worship of Yahweh was, of course,
forbidden and Nehemiah simply followed the spirit of the law, as it was originally
given, just as Boaz also followed the spirit of the law in recognizing that a
Moabitess who trusted in Yahweh should be received into the assembly through
marriage.
Conclusion
The law of Deuteronomy 23:3-6, like the laws before it, hint at the grace of
God, even while proclaiming His judgment. The Moabites and Ammonites were
not excluded because of their shady origins. On the contrary, Yahweh had
graciously provided land for the children of Lot, even helping them remove the
giants who lived in their lands before them. Yahweh had turned Balaams curse
into a blessing because He loved Israel (Deu. 23:5), but also because that is the kind
of God Yahweh is. His name proclaims His graciousness.
Thus, in the cases of Rahab and Ruth also, God turned the curse into a
blessing. That the Messiah was born of this special family is profoundly
signicant. Though he should have been perpetually cursed in Tamar, cursed in
Rahab, and cursed in Ruth, the Messiah was blessed in all three of them because
Yahweh is the God of grace who turns curses into blessing.
42
Chapter Five
Deuteronomy 23:7-8
Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not
abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The
children of the third generation that are born unto them shall enter
into the assembly of Yahweh.
This law presents us with more riddles. First, the law forbids Israelites to
abhor or detest Edomites and Egyptians, though both nations were idolatrous and
their peoples practiced ceremonies at least similar to the nations in Canaan. Ezra
9:1 specically speaks of abominations being practiced by Egyptians, among
other nations, using the noun form of the verb abhor
47
used in Deuteronomy
23:7. The law, therefore, seems to presuppose an Edomite or an Egyptian who is
not practicing the abominable worship typical of those nations.
Second, if the Moabites and Ammonites are cursed because they did not meet
the Israelites with water and bread on the way, why should the Edomites not be
similarly cursed? They also did not meet Israel with water and bread along the
way. In fact, when Moses sent them a gracious message, asking for help and
promising that Israel would only walk by the kings highway, Edom responded by
saying, Thou shalt not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against
thee (Num. 20:18). When the Israelites repeated their request, the Edomites
appeared in force with an army to stop Israel from going through their land. This
is less aggressive than Balaks attempt to curse Israel, but it is also far less friendly
than meeting them with bread and water. Why, then, should the Edomites get this
special favor?
Third, how can the Egyptians be considered less evil than Moab and Amon?
The Egyptians not only enslaved and oppressed Israel, they actually made an
attempt at exterminating all the descendants of Jacob as a race. It is hard to
imagine a more emphatic application of a curse to a nation than utterly eradicating
them. And yet, the Egyptians are here also allowed to enter the assembly of
47 The verb translated abhor or abominate (:::) is found in these passages in the Old
Testament: Deut 7:26; 23:7; 1 Kgs 21:26; Isa 14:19; 49:7; Ezek 16:25, 52; Amos 5:10; Mic 3:9; Ps 5:6;
14:1; 53:1; 106:40; 107:18; 119:163; Job 9:31; 15:16; 19:19; 30:10; 1 Chr 21:6. The noun form is much
more common, used 118 times in the Hebrew Bible. In Deuteronomy, the noun (:::) appears 17
times and these verses provide a context for the meaning of the verb (Deut 7:2526; 12:31; 13:14;
14:3; 17:1, 4; 18:9, 12; 20:18; 22:5; 23:18; 24:4; 25:16; 27:15; 32:16). The abominations Israel is to avoid
include idols and everything associated with idolatrous worship, unclean foods, and various kinds
of sexual immorality (cf. every use of the noun in Lev. 18:22, 2627, 2930; 20:13).
43
Yahweh in the third generation. Why do the Egyptians receive Gods special
favor?
Edom
We have to ask, what is there in the history of the Edomites that might
explain why they are given favor here? But this is not just a question faced by a
modern interpreter of an ancient text. An Israelite in the days of Joshua would face
the same conundrum. The law of Moses was not only instruction in righteousness;
it was also given as a riddle. In Deuteronomy 23:7-8, Moses was instructing Israel
in the ways of God by confronting them with another paradox in a context of
paradoxes.
The text in Deuteronomy specically points to the history of Jacob and Essau
in the words, for he is your brother. That history begins with the two brothers
struggling with one another even in their mothers womb. After that ominous
beginning, the story continues to tell of Jacobs dealings
48
with Esau and Isaac
among the most well-known stories in the book of Genesis. In that famous story,
Esaus anger and his vow to kill his brother associate the story of Esau and Jacob
with the story of Cain and Abel, in spite of various contrasts. The jealous older
brother hates the younger brother who has the favor of man and God and
determines to kill the younger brother. Though neither Cain nor Esau may have
been fully conscious of it, the act of revenge was ultimately aimed at God Himself
who favored the younger brother.
But this aspect of the history only intensies the problem. If Esau is like Cain
and if the Edomites hate or distrust the Israelites so much that they will not even
let Israel go through their territory, why should Edom have more favor than Moab
or Ammon? The answer hinted at in Deuteronomy 23:7 is provided in the fact that
the story of Esau concludes very differently from the story of Cain. Though Esau
and Jacob struggled and had moments that are reminiscent of Cain and Abel, their
story did not end in murder and the death of the younger brother. For when Jacob
returned to the land after a twenty-year exile, his brother Esau welcomed him.
Later, they both buried their father Isaac (Gen. 35:28-29) and their is no more
recorded hostility or trouble between them. In fact, Esau voluntary left the land
that Jacob had stolen from him by deceiving Isaac. He apparently gave up his
anger at his brother and accepted that it was Gods will to bless Jacob with the land
promised to Abraham and Isaac. His move to the hill country of Seir, therefore,
48 It is important to remember that the story of Jacob deceiving Isaac is actually the story of
Rebekah deceiving her husband in order to prevent him from committing a serious sin. It is not a
story of Jacob being greedy and stealing a blessing. It is a story about Isaac being foolish and
forgetting the word of God to Rebekah (Gen. 25:33). Gods plan had been made clear to Isaac and
Rebekah even before the boys were born. For Isaac to attempt to reverse Gods plan was
dangerous. Rebekah saved him from himself.
44
should be seen as motivated by faith in the God of his father. This happy ending to
the story of Jacob and Esau is the background for the gracious treatment of Esaus
descendants in Deuteronomy 23:7-8.
The other references to Edomites in Deuteronomy (Deut 2:45, 8, 12, 22, 29)
remind us that Yahweh had enabled them to ght giants and defeat them. The
land of Seir was Yahwehs gift to Edom, just as the land of Canaan was going to be
Yahwehs gift to Israel. At the time that Moses spoke his sermon to Israel, Edom
could be looked upon with some favor because of the history of Jacob and Esau.
We also have to consider that given the relatively short period of time from Esau to
the conquest, there may still have been god-fearing Edomites who would sojourn
in Israel because they believed in the God of Isaac.
Egypt
The case of Egypt is entirely different. There was no repentance or
reconciliation between Israel and Egypt. The story ends in judgment and death.
But the story did have a good beginning and Deuteronomy specically reminds the
reader of it. In Josephs day, Egyptians trusted in the God of Jacob and accepted
Joseph as a prophet of God, exalting him to the right hand of Pharaoh. As long as
Joseph lived and the Pharaohs believed in his God, Israel enjoyed a place of
special grace and favor in the very best part of the land of Egypt. The favor that
was extended to the children of Jacob was not to be forgotten. However, it remains
true that the story of Israels relationship with Egypt ended, as I said, badly. So,
why should Egypt be treated with special favor compared with Moabites and
Ammonites, both of which tribes were cousins to Israel?
I should stress here that the way the law is written an ancient reader would
surely have asked the questions I am asking. Egypt in the days of Moses had been
Israels worst enemy. Pharaoh himself was the symbol of Satan attacking the seed
of the woman and trying to ruin the promise made to Abraham. Until Haman the
Agagite in the days of Esther, no one in the entire history of Israel attempted the
kind of total genocide that Pharaoh had attempted. An ancient Israelite in Joshuas
day would not have forgotten the suffering Israel endured in the house of
bondage.
Remarkably there are 50 references to Egypt in the book of Deuteronomy.
49
This contrasts with 29 references in Numbers and only 11 references in the book of
Leviticus. Exodus, of course, has far more references (123) than any other book.
49 Deu. 1:27, 30; 4:20, 34, 37, 4546; 5:6, 15; 6:12, 2122; 7:8, 15, 18; 8:14; 9:7, 12, 26; 10:19, 22; 11:34,
10; 13:5, 10; 15:15; 16:1, 3, 6, 12; 17:16; 20:1; 23:4; 24:9, 18, 22; 25:17; 26:5, 8; 28:27, 60, 68; 29:2, 16, 25;
34:11. The word Egyptian is used in Genesis 20 times, in Exodus 57 times, in Leviticus 1 time, in
Numbers 4 times, and in Deuteronomy only twice. The word Pharaoh appears in Genesis 93
times, in Exodus 115 times, and in Deuteronomy 7 times, while not appearing at all in Leviticus and
Numbers. The combined numbers of the various Egypt-related words shows that
45
Apart from Exodus, in all the rest of the Old Testament, only Genesis (77), Jeremiah
(62) and Ezekiel (51) have more references to Egypt than Deuteronomy. Most of
the references to Egypt in the book of Deuteronomy point back to the Exodus.
Indeed, Moses exhortations to the Israelites to remember their redemption from
Egypt constitutes an important theme for his nal sermon.
then beware lest thou forget Yahweh, who brought thee forth out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 6:12
When thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the
testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which Yahweh our
God hath commanded you? Then thou shalt say unto thy son, We
were Pharaohs bondmen in Egypt: and Yahweh brought us out of
Egypt with a mighty hand; and Yahweh showed signs and wonders,
great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his house,
before our eyes; and he brought us out from thence, that he might
bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers. 6:20-
23
If thou shalt say in thy heart, These nations are more than I; how can I
dispossess them? Thou shalt not be afraid of them: thou shalt well
remember what Yahweh thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all
Egypt; the great trials which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the
wonders, and the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, whereby
Yahweh thy God brought thee out: so shall Yahweh thy God do unto
all the peoples of whom thou art afraid. 7:17-19
Beware lest thou forget Yahweh thy God, in not keeping his
commandments, and his ordinances, and his statutes, which I
command thee this day: lest, when thou hast eaten and art full, and
hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; and when thy herds and
thy ocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all
that thou hast is multiplied; then thy heart be lifted up, and thou
forget Yahweh thy God, who brought thee forth out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage; who led thee through the great
and terrible wilderness, wherein were ery serpents and scorpions,
and thirsty ground where was no water; who brought thee forth
water out of the rock of int; who fed thee in the wilderness with
manna, which thy fathers knew not; that he might humble thee, and
that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end: and lest
46
thou say in thy heart, My power and the might of my hand hath
gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember Yahweh thy God, for
it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth; that he may establish his
covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as at this day. 8:11-18
Remembering the bondage and deliverance from Egypt is remembering the
saving grace of God who fullled His promises to Abraham through spectacular
judgments against Egypt and wonderful provision for the Israelites. But it is also
remembering the wickedness of the Egyptians in bringing Israel into bondage.
Since Egypt and the exodus constitute a major theme of Deuteronomy, we are
again confronted with the seeming paradox of Yahwehs graciousness to the
Egyptians. Apart from the allusion to Israels sojourn in Egypt and the reminder of
the good days of Joseph, is there anything in the law to suggest a reason for
Egypts special treatment here?
I believe there are two possible reasons that may be added to what is
specied in the text, part of the background of the law that an Israelite would have
recalled as he meditated on Yahwehs strange ways. First, Egypt had been
thoroughly punished for its sins against Israel. The judgments on the land of
Egypt listed in the book of Exodus would have utterly ruined the land of Egypt. It
may be that Moses regarded Egypt as having paid for its sins because of Yahwehs
amazing judgments on that land.
Second, perhaps because of the judgments Egypt suffered some Egyptians
came to believe in the God of Israel. At any rate, we know that the mixed
multitude who came out of Egypt with Israel (Exo. 12:38) included Egyptians (cf.
Lev. 24:10). Though the so-called mixed multitude seem to either overlap with
or be the same as the trouble-makers who are called rabble in Numbers (11:4),
the fact that these people left Egypt with Israel probably indicates some sort of
faith.
In Deuteronomy, Moses refers to sojourners who are with Israel at that time
and even includes them in the covenant (Deu. 29:10-15). It seems likely that some
of these people would be the descendants of Egyptians who left the land with
Israel. If they were, it would constitute another irony in the law, for they are only
the second generation. Even if there are no Egyptians among them, it would still
be signicant that second-generation foreigners are being included in the covenant,
for that would seem to make them members of the assembly of Israel. Perhaps
participation in the wilderness wanderings constituted a form of covenant
initiation that obviated the necessity to wait for another generation. It was, after
all, an exceptional era. In any case, if there were a small but signicant groups of
Egyptian sojourners, they would constitute a group of people like Ruth or Rahab,
47
who had left their own people and land to follow Yahweh. Grace to such people
ts the rest of the context and its odd message of Gods mercy in judgment.
Conclusion
The text itself points to the answers for the questions the startled reader
would naturally ask. Why special favor shown to Egyptians and Edomites? The
short answer is, because of the history of their relationship with Israel. Their
different histories, of course, show different reasons for Gods gracious law, as the
words of Deuteronomy 23:7 point out. Though it may surprise the reader at rst,
Gods grace toward Egypt and Edom, however remarkable, ts well the context
which reminds readers of Tamar and suggests the possibility of grace to anyone
who comes to Yahweh in faith.
48
Chapter Six
Matthew 15:21-28
And Jesus went out thence, and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and
Sidon. And behold, a Canaanitish woman came out from those
borders, and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of
David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. But he
answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him,
saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and
said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But
she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. And he
answered and said, It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast
it to the dogs. But she said, Yea, Lord, but even the dogs eat of the
crumbs which fall from their masters table. Then Jesus answered
and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee
even as thou wilt. And her daughter was healed from that hour.
This story reinforces our reading of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 as intentionally
paradoxical a riddle of Gods grace included in the laws of exclusion. Jesus
departed into the region of Tyre and Sidon, gentile territory, in order to rest from
the hustle and bustle of his ministry in Galilee (Mar. 7:24). But immediately,
according to Mark, a Gentile, pagan woman appeared, asking for help (Mar. 7:25).
The woman is identied as a Greek, a Syro-phenecian, and a Canaanite
(Mat. 15:22; Mar. 7:26). Though she is not from the particular nations mentioned in
Deuteronomy 23:1-8, she is a Gentile from an idolatrous nation the kind of
people that Deuteronomy warns against.
Jesus is very clear. He is not sent to help Gentiles, but the lost sheep of Israel.
His rejection of her plea adds to the disciples attempt to send her away. One
would expect her to be disappointed at least and perhaps even angry that she is
being treated with such disrespect by a man known as a prophet and healer. What
is more, Jesus did not just turn her down once, but twice and labeled her as a
Gentile dog.
From the perspective of Deuteronomy, this rejection of a Gentile is not
illegitimate. She had no right to the special blessings of chosen people. Jesus was
not a philanthropist healer on a medical mission. His healing was specically
designed to restore Israel to her priestly role among the nations. It was a messianic
task, not a humanitarian work. However, as we have already seen from
49
considering Deuteronomy, the prohibition of Gentiles was never intended to be
absolute. The law itself pointed to gracious exceptions.
Jesus answer to the woman might seem to us like an insult, but that was not
at all Jesus intention. Rather, He is accomplishing two things. First, He is
establishing the literal realities of His ministry and commission. Neither this
woman nor any other Gentile can presume the right to be healed by Jesus. He was
sent to the lost sheep of Israel and bringing Israel back to God was his calling. Of
course, that was just the rst step toward the redemption of all mankind, but that
rst step was the work Jesus was called to do.
This ts with the passage in Deuteronomy because the verses in
Deuteronomy are concerned with membership in the assembly of Yahweh, the
denition of who belongs to Israel. People who do not belong are excluded from
the special blessings of the chosen people. The gift of the Messiah Himself and His
healing ministry is, of course, rst of all for the assembly of Yahweh, not for others
especially not for someone who could be identied as a Canaanite. This
woman was a perfect representative of those who were forbidden to join the
assembly of Yahweh. Therefore, Jesus rightly rejects her.
But Jesus is the God who gave the law. He knows well about His own
grandmothers: Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. Tamar was turned down, but her faith
found a way to get from Judah what she sought for the kingdom of God. Rahab
was a social outcast, but her faith found a way to save her family and build a
future as an ancestress of the Messiah. Ruth was turned down by Naomi and four
times urged to return to her pagan people, but she persisted in faith and eventually
won a prominent place in the most distinguished family in world history. Jesus is
the same God as Yahweh, the one who tests His peoples faith. Thus, Tamar,
Rahab, and Ruth were tested, but their faith persisted in spite of rejection because it
was genuine.
That, then, is the second reason for Jesus apparently harsh words to test
this womans faith. She showed up as soon as he entered the house (Mar. 7:25) and
persistently begged for Him to heal her daughter (Mar. 7:26). Already, her faith
was clear. By testing her faith, Jesus puried it, leading her to join the ranks of
Ruth and others who did not take no for an answer.
The Canaanite woman displayed her faith in more ways than one. From the
beginning she addressed Jesus as the Son of David, so she knew about Israel and
Gods plan for His people, at least to some degree. It seems probable that she had
come to Jesus because she believed that He was the Messiah, which seems to be the
only thing the title, Son of David could have meant. When, therefore, Jesus
seemed to reject her, she did not give up or get discouraged.
In Matthew, we see that rst Jesus ignored her. Her response was to continue
to plead for Jesus help. The disciples asked Jesus to send her away because she
50
was troubling them so much, but again, she did not give up. Jesus then gave her
his rst answer, rejecting her plea with the statement that He was only sent to
the lost sheep of Israel. At this point, she approached Him and bowed before Him,
asking for help. Again, her persistence in the face of rejection showed her trust in
Christ. Since she continued to beg, Jesus responded in language even harsher, in
effect calling her a Gentile dog.
However, she did not argue with Jesus about His Jewish mission or show
frustration or anger at His words to her. Rather, she accepted His seemingly harsh
words and built her answer on the presupposition of their appropriateness. This
time her answer was not mere persistence, repeating the same request over and
over. Rather, her answer showed faith in Jesus as the one who was commissioned
to save Israel. She acknowledged Gods special purpose for the seed of Abraham,
but added to it in a surprising way. For what she added to Jesus picture of the
children eating bread at the table borrowed what we might consider the most
insulting aspect of the whole scene, the reference to Gentiles as dogs: Yes, Lord,
but even the dogs under the table feed on the childrens crumbs.
This answer showed humble child-like faith of the sort Jesus commended on
other occasions. Her words displayed wisdom born from trust in the kind of
person Jesus is. It was not her cleverness or quick tongue that won Jesus favor,
but the fact that she trusted in Him as the Messianic representative of Israels
gracious God, the God who shares His favor promiscuously to those who trust in
Him.
Jesus conversation with the Canaanite woman is typical of the way God
deals with people who come to Him for help. If we keep in mind the kind of God
Yahweh is and has displayed Himself to be, we will read the law differently and
notice the riddles and paradoxes it includes. We will learn to see Gods grace in
places we would not normally expect it, even in laws that seemed primarily
concerned with restricting entrance to the assembly of Israel.
51
Chapter Seven
Conclusions
In this series, I have offered an interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8
which suggests that a simple surface reading of the text does not do justice to
Moses or Gods intention, that the larger historical and legal context in which
these laws were given suggests a much more complicated interpretation of the
laws than one might make if he simply read the laws as independently standing
statutes. I offered an interpretation of these laws which claims that they allude to
or presuppose historical and legal passages. Considered together, the various texts
force an ancient reader to see multiple levels of meaning in these laws. Thus, the
laws in Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 contain irony and puzzles that open up nuances
and meanings hidden from the casual reader.
But, of course, a modern reader might object. Right off hand, I can imagine
the following possible arguments. First, one might claim that the view suggested
in my essays is too complex. The objector might say that it would be absurd to
assume an ancient reader of the law would be able to remember all these
associations and put them together. It is simply too subtle to be believable.
Second, one might also object that if the law is stated in terms this complex that it
loses its democratic character. That is to say, if the law is so difcult to grasp, the
book of Deuteronomy hardly stands as a sermon to all the people of Israel. It
would become the province of specialists, like the priests, rather than Gods word
for His people. This seems to contradict many passages in Deuteronomy which
clearly imply the law was intended for the whole nation, especially the paragraph
containing the rst and great commandment which speaks of common Israelites
inscribing the law on their hearts and teaching the commandments diligently to
their children (Deu. 6:4-9). Third, one might object that these laws are rst
articulated by Moses in order to correct the sins and problems of the patriarchal
era. Examples like Tamar are not set forth in Genesis as behavior to be imitated,
but as sinful behavior that God graciously forgave. The law of Moses in
Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 makes it clear that God disapproves of this behavior.
There is no paradox or riddle here. What was tolerated before Moses is no longer
tolerated.
I have stated the rst two objections as different issues, but I think they both
boil down to objecting that my view makes the law too complicated. The third
objection is rather different. No one can deny that God in some earlier ages
tolerated behavior that in later times He condemned. The most obvious example is
brothers marrying sisters. In the case of the children of Adam and Eve, for
52
example, there is no other option. Cain married a sister. There was no sin in doing
so, and God did not disapprove. But in the law of Moses, God forbade the Israelite
men from marrying their sisters (Lev. 18:6 ff, esp. vs. 9). In fact, as the law is stated
it even specically forbids Israelites from imitating Abraham, who married his
half-sister. This was not, of course, condemning Abraham himself, but it was
drawing a historical line between what had been permissible in the past and what
would be permissible in the future. An objector to my view could argue that all of
the laws about marriage t into this paradigm.
The Law Loses its Democratic Nature
I will consider each of these objections in order, beginning with the second
rather than the rst. It seems to me that the second objection derives from the rst,
but it is also signicantly different and deserves separate consideration. If the law
is so complex and if understanding the law requires such subtle thinking, how can
we say that Deuteronomy is a sermon for the whole people of Israel? How can we
say that the law itself is a law for the whole people of Israel? Doesnt this kind of
subtle interpretation take the law out of the hands of the common Israelite (and in
our day the average Christian) and place it into the hands of specialists? Doesnt
this make the law the esoteric province of priests?
With apologies to my hypothetical objector, I believe the answer to this
question is also rather complicated. To begin with, the fact that Moses is
addressing the nation does not mean that he must speak in terms of a lowest-
common-denominator paradigm of sermonizing. We might think that a good
sermon must be entirely comprehensible by the entire congregation. But what if
Moses did not think that way? What if Moses preached a sermon to Israel that was
simple and easily understandable at one level and in some places, but was also at
the same time deeply subtle and included riddles and paradoxes in other places?
Is this possible? In my understanding, this is the character of the Bible as a whole.
Children can read the Bible, understand its basic message and prot from it.
Scholars can and do devote their entire lives to understanding the Bible and never
plumb the depths of it. Centuries of study by the godliest and wisest of men still
leave questions unanswered. Can anyone deny this?
What I am claiming for the book of Deuteronomy is simply that it shares the
same character as the Bible as a whole. Deuteronomy is a sermon for the people of
Israel. The Ten Words were a clear statement of Gods will for His people that
everyone could easily memorize and meditate upon. In an age like Joshuas, when
people followed Gods law, I think we can assume that an Israelite farmer could
recite the Ten Words from memory and understand their basic meaning. The song
of Moses is much more difcult and subtle, but singing it repeatedly would rmly
places its subtleties even into the minds of children and lead them to think about
53
Gods ways and Gods law. We should not underestimate the abilities of an
average man to understand Gods law, assuming he is taught.
All of that being said, however, I also have to wonder, who can read the law
of God and not see that it establishes a hierarchical system? The whole nation of
Israel is a priestly nation (Exo. 19:6). But that does not mean that their are no
Israelites who are more priestly than others, for the tribe of Levi has special
privileges and responsibilities not given to the other tribes. And within the tribe of
Levi, the family of Aaron has special privileges and responsibilities not given to
other families. Furthermore, within the family of Aaron, the rstborn sons have
special privileges and responsibilities not granted to the others in Aarons family.
Israels law system includes provisions which dene a hierarchical society. It not
only assumes, it requires specialists, including specialists in the law.
However, there is no reason to claim that this system removes the law from
the common man. It simply requires that the common man seek counsel from
the Levites when they confront difcult issues of interpretation and application.
Similarly, it requires that the Levites seek counsel from other Levites or priests
when they face matters they cannot adequately handle. Levites and priests, too,
might not be able to answer questions put to them, so that they would be required
to ask the High Priest to consult Yahweh Himself through the Urim and Thummim
(Exod 28:30; Num 27:21). The law of Moses establishes a hierarchical system. To
be sure, it has what we might call democratic elements, but the notion that the
law contains difculties and subtleties does not contradict the idea that the law
addresses the whole nation and all the people, for God provided teachers of His
law to lead the whole people to deeper understanding and love, as He also does in
the New Covenant (Eph. 4:11-16).
This View is too Complex
The rst objection I mentioned is simply that the view I set forth is too
complex. How could the average Israelite be expected to understand the kind of
subtleties I claim are to be found in Deuteronomy? By answering the second
objection, I have already partially answered this one. The answer is twofold. First,
the law contains many teachings, basic instruction, that would be perfectly
comprehensible to the average Israelite. I am not claiming that every word of
the law is a paradox or riddle that would be hard to understand. The Ten Words in
particular dene the basic covenantal ethic of Israelite society and they are totally
accessible. Second, God gave teachers to Israel, specialists who were supposed to
devote their lives to study the law and to teach it to the people of Israel. Consider
Ezra.
54
For Ezra had set his heart to seek the law of Yahweh, and to do it, and
to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances. (Ezr. 7:10)
But this answer is not enough. The fact is that if the average Israelite were
educated in the law, few of the subtle aspects of Deuteronomy would be beyond
him. First, as I pointed out previously, at the time of Joshua, the whole written
Scripture was just Genesis through Deuteronomy. This is not a vast corpus. The
people had been commanded to gather together locally every Sabbath (Lev. 23:3).
What would they do? Obviously, I think, they would read the law and talk about
it. They would probably also sing and pray. The weekly Sabbath worship should
have informed the average Israelite about the subtleties of the law through the
repeated reading of Genesis through Deuteronomy and the instruction given by
local leaders.
Second, we need to think more carefully about the situation of the average
Israelite. Why should we assume that he would not notice what we can notice?
Remember, everything was personal to them. They were the tribes and the people
who came out of Jacobs loins and Egypts bondage. What Israelite would forget
the story of Reuben? What Israelite would not know the story of Lot, or the story
of Tamar? When Moses pronounced Gods condemnation of acts similar to those
of Reuben or Tamar who would not easily recognize it and ask questions about
Moses meaning?
To regard my suggested interpretation as too complex or difcult for the
average Israelite in Joshuas day is unfair to the intelligence of the so-called
average man of any age. No doubt there are subtleties in the law that the
average man could not understand and concerning which he would seek help
from teachers and specialists. But, at the same time, the average man, hearing
the law read over and over each Sabbath, meditating on the law in his daily life,
and seeking understanding could understand much. In a godly era like the days of
Joshua, the teachers of the law in Israel would have supplied any gaps.
The Law Corrects the Sins of the Past
The third possible objection is that we do not need to read these puzzles and
paradoxes into the law, because there is another approach that adequately
addresses the matter: the book of Deuteronomy is simply correcting sins of the
past. What had been tolerated in the patriarchal era would no longer be
permissible. Cain married a sister. Abraham married a half sister. Neither of them
sinned in so doing, but the times had changed. In Deuteronomy, Moses dened
permissible and impermissible relationships differently. No paradox or riddle is
necessary. This view could be combined with the rst two objections or be set
forth as an independent argument.
55
As I have already stated, there are changes in the laws over time. Brother-
sister marriage was permitted in earlier times but was indeed forbidden later.
However, these sorts of change in the law do not mean that a complex reading of
Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 is unnecessary. On the contrary, I offer three arguments to
demonstrate that a complex reading is the Biblical approach.
First, whatever may be said about my interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:30-
23:8, the fact is that we cannot escape the basic idea of paradox and subtleties in the
law, including intentional apparent contradictions. One of the more obvious ones,
which has been widely recognized from ancient times, came up in the previous
discussion. On the one hand, the law specically forbids Israelites from mixing
wool and linen in their clothing (Deu. 22:12). This is not because the mixture
implies sin or compromise. Quite to the contrary, the mixture is too holy for the
common Israelite. Only the priests were to wear garments of mixed cloth.
However, on the other hand, the law also required Israelites to wear tassels with a
blue cord (Deu. 22:12; Num. 15:38). That meant a mixture of cloth since only wool
could be dyed. The cord on the tassel is an insignicantly small part of the
garment, but the mere fact of including a small piece of dyed wool on a linen
garment would make the association between the common Israelites and the
priests. The contradiction in the law was intended to make a theological point:
that all Israelites were priests in a secondary sense. This is a feature of Mosaic law
that modern interpreters must take into account.
Another surprising example appears in a festschrift for James Jordan. Peter
Leithart drew attention to a missing law in Leviticus 18, one that must have
created no little confusion for ancient priests.
There is no explicit prohibition against uncovering the nakedness of a
daughter. I demonstrate below that daughters were excluded, but in
a passage that explicitly excludes aunts, sisters-in-law, daughters-in-
law, step-daughters, and granddaughters, the absence of a direct
prohibition of father-daughter incest is so startling that it must be
deliberate and meaningful.
50
No doubt Israelites in Joshuas day would have pondered the meaning of this
omission, but they did not face a glaring contradiction here and it was clear from
the general structure of the chapter that father-daughter incest was forbidden, even
though mysteriously unmentioned. As Leithart points out, silence may be a form
of emphasis. When one expects to nd a particular literary feature but it is absent,
50 From Peter J. Leithart, The Knotted Thread of Time in, The Glory of Kings: A Festschrift in
Honor of James Jordan, edited by Peter J. Leithart and John Barach (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick
Publications, 2011), pp. 58-59.
56
that absence becomes a puzzle that forces readers to think. The absence of a father-
daughter prohibition in Leviticus, therefore, drew attention to the subject. In
Ezekiels day the emphasis was intensied and the mystery heightened by the
introduction of an apparent breach of the unstated law by Yahweh Himself.
By way of background to Ezekiel, we must remember that Israel is called
Gods son in the Exodus (Ex. 4:22) and the people His sons and daughters (Deu.
32:19). In fact, the father-son image dominates and characterizes the entire book of
Deuteronomy.
51
In a passage that Ezekiel specically points to, Yahweh is
described as Israels father and mother (Deu. 32:1-18). Later, Jerusalem is
frequently pictured as the daughter of Yahweh (2 Kgs. 19:21; Psa. 9:14; Isa. 1:8;
10:32; 16:1; 37:22; 52:2; 62:11; Jer. 4:31; 6:2; etc.).
52
With this literary background in
mind, when Ezekiel describes Yahweh as having found Jerusalem as an infant girl,
raised her as His daughter, and then married her, the metaphor is striking (Eze.
16:1-14). Leithart suggests that the father-daughter incest seemingly implied by
Ezekiel nds a solution in the revelation of the Son in the New Covenant.
Under the Old Covenant, Israel was forced to puzzle over the
revelation that Yahweh is both Father and Husband to Israel. The
jarring implicit incest offered a puzzle designed to arouse Israel to
consider a plurality within the life of Yahweh, the possibility of an
eternal divine society. Perhaps, they would begin to suspect, Yahweh
is both Father and Husband to Israel because Yahweh is Himself both
Father and Son. Ultimately the knot is undone by the gospels fuller
uncovering of the Triune life, its revelation of a Father who so loves
His daughter that He sends His son to give Himself and ultimately, as
Jonathan Edwards put it, to introduce her into the family of the
Triune life and the bride of His Son.
53
Second, my understanding of the law is conrmed by passages subsequent to
the law which indicate that ancient Israelites discovered complex layers of
meaning in the law. To take one example related to our passage, consider the rest
of the Old Testament witness concerning Moab. We have already pointed out in a
previous essay that Boaz relationship with Ruth suggests that Boaz, a child of a
mother from a condemned nation, realized that Deuteronomy 23:3-6 was not
intended to exclude godly individuals who would repent and seek the God of
Israel. But the later history of Israel is suggestive as well.
51 See: Ralph Allan Smith, Hear My Son: An Examination of the Fatherhood of Yahweh in
Deuteronomy (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2011).
52 The expression daughter of Zion should be understood as daughter Zion. Zion is not a
mother, but the daughter.
53 Op. cit. p. 73.
57
On the one hand, almost every reference to Moab in the Old Testament is
negative (Judg 3:12, 1415; 1 Sam. 14:47; 1 Kgs 11:33; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:45, 7, 10; Isa. 15:1
ff.; etc.). The general perspective is that Moab hates Yahweh and Israel and that it
therefore deserves the judgment that comes upon it. On the other hand, when
David was in trouble, he sought help from the king of Moab (1 Sam. 22:3-4). He
did not go to Edom or Ammon, but to Moab. Why? The obvious answer would
seem to be that it was because Davids ancestress, Ruth, was from Moab. Perhaps
the story suggests some sort of family connections or friendship between Moab
and David, though there may be nothing more here than the king of Moabs
enmity to Saul. In any event, this does not bear fruit in the salvation or blessing of
the nation, for David later has to go to war against Moab and he punishes them
severely (2 Sam. 8:2).
54
However, the fact that Moab served David (a blessing for
the Moabites) and that there was a Moabite among Davids mighty men (1 Chr.
11:46) does indicate that David did seek the blessing of Moab and allowed a
Moabite to have a special place in his kingdom. He did not understand the curse
of Deuteronomy 23:3-6 as absolute.
It is even more remarkable to note that this long-standing and erce enemy of
Israel is promised Yahwehs gracious salvation.
Yet I will restore the fortunes of Moab
in the latter days, declares Yahweh. Jer. 48:47
Israel had been forbidden to seek the peace or prosperity of the Moabites, but
David and Jeremiah understood that in His grace, God would overturn the curse.
No doubt they would have also understood the historical allusions in
Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 and seen the ironies and puzzles in them.
Third, consider the case of Jonah. He knew that God shows Himself to be
gracious even to His enemies. Jonah understood that though Yahweh pronounces
terrifying curses, He is the God who delights to change the curse into a blessing.
When, therefore, Yahweh sent Jonah to Nineveh, Jonah understood from the
beginning that Yahwehs declaration of certain judgment in 40 days included an
implicit but unstated promise of salvation should Nineveh repent. Where did
Jonah learn of this? Through his reading of the law and prophets and through his
study of the history of Israel. Nothing in the message that God gave to Jonah
suggested the possibility of mercy. But Jonah understood the implicit and hidden
message included in the condemnation of Nineveh. After all, if Yahweh simply
intended to destroy Nineveh, there would have been no prophetic visit, unless it
54 Apparently some Jewish commentators suggest that the king of Moab killed Davids parents and
Davids severity was a response to Moabs treachery.
58
would be like the angels visit to Sodom, to remove a godly remnant before the re
would fall from heaven.
Reasoning like Jonahs requires one to go beyond the surface of the text and
consider other contexts, especially the most important context of all: the Bibles
depiction of the character of Yahweh. Who is Yahweh? What kind of a God is He?
Jonah knew the answer that Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 teaches between the lines of
its seemingly judgmental laws.
Summary
This entire essay illustrates what James Jordan argued in his introduction to
the Biblical worldview, Through New Eyes.
Before the modern era, and before Gutenberg, there were few books.
The few men who wrote books wrote them very carefully. As a result,
ancient writings, including the Bible, are very tightly and precisely
written. Every word has its place.
This fact is generally ignored by liberal scholarship, which usually
assumes that any part of the Bible is a sloppy conation of several
sources. This viewpoint grew up to explain apparent contradictions
and paradoxes in the text. A proper reading of any ancient text,
including the Bible, would take the apparent contradictions as stimuli
for deeper reection.
55
The oddness of Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 is intentional. Like Gods message to
Jonah, Moses sermon included layers of meaning not explicitly stated in the text,
but which a sensitive reader should pick up on a meditative reading. Indeed, the
whole Bible is written as both revelation and riddle. Its message is hidden from
the proud and foolish who hate their Creator, but is open to those who love their
heavenly Father and seek Him with all their heart.
55 James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock, 1999), p.14.
59