How to Read the Law of Moses

7/27/2019 How to Read the Law of Moses

1/71

!!!How to Read the Law of Moses

An Examination of Deuteronomy22:30-23:8

!!!!

Ralph Allan Smith!!


2/71

Law and History:How to Read the Law of Moses

Introduction

Eric Auerbach, in his classic work on Western literature, devotes hisfirst chapter to contrasting Homer with the Bible. Of Homer, he writes ofthe need of Homeric style to leave nothing which it mentions half indarkness and unexternalized.1 This is more fully expressed in the

following.

the basic impulse of the Homeric style: to representphenomena in a fully externalized form, visible and palpablein all their parts, and completely fixed in their spacial andtemporal relations. Nor do psychological processes receiveany other treatment: here too nothing must remain hiddenand 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 unplumbeddepths.3 There is, rather, what Auerbach calls a procession ofphenomena which takes place entirely in the foreground, that is, alocal and temporal present which is absolute. Homers style knows onlya foreground, only a uniformly illuminated, uniformly objective present.4

Auerbach then turns to the Bible. He begins with the story ofAbraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice in Genesis 22. As he says, comparingthe Bible to Homer, it would be difficult, then, to imagine styles morecontrasted than those of these two equally ancient and equally epic texts.

The personages speak in the Bible story too; but their speechdoes not serve, as does speech in Homer, to manifest, to

1 Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), p. 5.2 Ibid., p.63 Ibid., pp. 6-7.

4 Ibid., p. 7.

1


3/71

externalize thoughtson the contrary, it serves to indicatethoughts which remain unexpressed. God gives hiscommand in direct discourse, but he leaves his motives andhis purpose unexpressed; Abraham, receiving 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, thereis no room for interpretation. The Bible, on the other hand, since itexpresses only what it necessary and leaves everything else in obscurity,demands to be interpreted.6 The Biblical narrative raises questions that itdoes 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 readercompares Scripture with Scripture to find answers for the questions whichnaturally arise from the story.

Not only, however, does Biblical narrative remain mysterious andfraught with background,7 but it is also a narrative that makestotalitarian claims about representing reality.

The Bibles claim to truth is not only far more urgent thanHomers, it is tyrannicalit excludes all other claims. Theworld of the Scripture stories is not satisfied with claiming tobe a historically true reality it insists that it is the only realworld, is destined for autocracy.8

Seeking to rightly understand the Bible, in other words, means thepursuit of ultimate truth about reality itself if the Bibles worldview istrue. Auerbach, together with post-enlightenment thinkers in general,

rejects the Biblical worldview.9 But at least he is completely aware of theimmensity, the comprehensive grandeur of the Bible and its worldview.

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 haveessayed to do here, but he cannot be interpreted. Later allegorizing trends have tried theirarts of interpretation upon him, but to no avail. He resists any such treatment; theinterpretations are forced and foreign, they do not crystallize into a unified doctrine. pp.13-14.7 Ibid., p. 12.8 Ibid., pp. 14-15.

9 Ibid., especially pp. 19 ff.

2


4/71

He knows he is rejecting an ancient theory of everything that calls intojudgment those who do not submit to it.

Thus, by way of introduction to this essay, I want to emphasize firsthow different the Bible is as a piece of literature from any other book we

might read. We need to remember that even though modern Westernliterary conventions have been influenced by the Bible, the Bible itself wasnot written according to our accustomed literary conventions. This meansthat reading Scripture requires special effort. We cannot understand it wellthrough a casual reading. But this labor required to interpret the Bible issomething that the Bible itself demands from us.

The second thing I want to emphasize is that reading the Bible bringsus under the judgment of the Bibles teaching. Reading the Bible is not andcannot be a neutral enterprise. The Bible does, as Auerbach duly notes,

make totalitarian claims. I believe those claims are true and that this bookuniquely judges its readers. It not only demands that its readers put in theextra effort to understand it, it also calls its readers into judgment for theirresponse 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 SeventhCommandment.10 I will offer here an approach to the passage that differsfrom typical commentaries, though I depend on their insights as well. Theapproach I recommend in this essay is, for want of a better term, ameditative approach to reading the law of Moses, the Torah. Theparticular sort of meditation I am advocating here, however, is not asubjective, feeling-based reading. Rather, as Auerbach also demonstrates, Ibelieve that the text of Scripture itself, invites, provokes, and demandsinterpretation based on comparing Scripture with Scripture.

In other words, Moses composed Deuteronomy 22:30-23:8 in such away that he subtly reminds readers of other passages either in the laws ofExodus through Numbers or the historical narrative from Genesis throughNumbers. If we read the law slowly enough, asking questions of the text,and meditating on its meaning, we will discover subtleties and meaningthat a casual reading completely misses. However, I am not suggesting

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.

3


5/71

that our meditation should create a new meaning for the text, themeditation I recommend is intended to enable us to enter the ancient textand its fuller meaning with the mind of an ancient reader to the degreethat is possible.11

To begin with, then, remember that David pronounced Gods specialblessing12 on the man who delights in Yahwehs Torah and meditates onthe Torah day and night (Psa. 1:2). So, we naturally ask, What does it meanto meditate? To answer the question, consider how the Hebrew word isused in the Old Testament. The word translated meditate in Psalm one(hgh) only occurs 24 times.13 The first reference stands out. It is Yahwehsword to Joshua, commanding him to mediate on the Torah day and night.Davids declaration in Psalm 1:2, therefore, clearly looks back to Joshuahimself as a man who meditated on Yahwehs Torah and was richly

blessed. That gives us an example, but it doesnt show us concretely whatthe word means.

The second use of the word hgh in the Psalms gives us a concretepicture of exactly what meditation involves. The wicked are said todevise (hgh) a vain thing against Yahweh (Psa. 2:1). In other words, theymeditate on challenging God. Imagine the wicked devising plans,thinking and rethinking day and night about how best they can make theirrebellion against Yahweh succeed. Similarly, another Psalm tells us how

those who sought Davids life planned all day how they could trap anddestroy him (Psa. 38:12).14 In these verses, the Psalms show us that thehatred which consumes the wicked and preoccupies their minds withplans for rebellion and evil is the precise opposite of the love for Torah thatinspires the righteous to dwell constantly on the law. To meditate is to

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 Bibleslanguage. This essay attempts to apply that basic approach to the exposition ofDeuteronomy 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 thecovenant promised in Deuteronomy 28, for Deuteronomy is speaking of blessings fornational obedience, not individual obedience. In a nation of people who hate the trueGod, individual faithfulness to Him will often, if not always, bring persecution andopposition, as it did to Jeremiah, Jesus, and Paul. What Psalm 1 ultimately speaks of is

blessing and success of the sort that we see in Jesus peace and joy in the true God in alife 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; 24:214 They also that seek after my life lay snares for me;

And they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things,

And meditate on/devise (hgh) treachery all the day long.

4


6/71

think over and over about the meaning of each statute and command, toask questions about why God gave a particular command, and to deeplyconsider 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 longingThat it hath unto thine ordinances at all times. (119:20)

The law of thy mouth is better unto meThan 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)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 fine 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 whatDavid commended is exactly what the Christian approach to the Torahought to be though, of course, not the Torah only. We need to askquestions about each command and statute in the spirit of one who ishumbly seeking to know and understand not only the law of God, buteven more, the God of the law. Why did Yahweh give this command?How does this fit into Israels whole covenantal system? What might this

5


7/71

have meant to an ancient Israelite? Especially we need to ask a particularquestion that modern Christians are not likely to ask, but I think thatancient Israelites would have certainly ask: What in Israels history mightthis 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, evenmore 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 seethe meaning of the Torah in the light of Israels history will we be able torelate it to our history. N. T. Wright in a discussion of worldview made thefollowing 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 tomake sense of them; when people do that we say that they aredrunk, or mad. As Macintyre argues, conversations inparticular and human actions in general are enactednarratives. That is, the overall narrative is the more basiccategory, while the particular moment and person can only beunderstood within that context . . .

Human life, then, can be seen as grounded in and constitutedby the implicit or explicit stories which humans tellthemselves and one another. This runs contrary to thepopular belief that a story is there to illustrate some point orother which can in principle be stated without recourse to theclumsy vehicle of a narrative. Stories are often wronglyregarded as a poor persons substitute for the real thing,which is to be found either in some abstract truth or instatements about bare facts. An equally unsatisfactory

alternative is to regard the story as a showcase for a rhetoricalsaying or set of such sayings. Stories are a basic constituentof human life; they are, in fact, one key element within thetotal construction of a worldview. I shall argue in chapter 5that all worldviews contain an irreducible narrative element,which stands alongside the other worldview elements

6


8/71

(symbol, praxis, and basic questions and answers), none ofwhich 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 andaction 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, forexample, the narrative approach to worldview questions that characterizedPauls writing was not original with him. It is typical of all the authors ofScripture beginning with Moses. What this means for Torah is obvious.Moses wrote laws and history that are haunted by the stories that precededthem. Virtually every law in the book of Deuteronomy presupposes,alludes to, recalls, reflects on, or inescapably reminds readers of stories in

Genesis to Numbers.16Meditating on Deuteronomy, then, includes taking time to ask which

stories the various commands and laws allude to, relate with, or remind usof. As we recall the stories from Genesis to Numbers, one of theoutstanding features of the basic story is that God Himself is the centralfigure. Biblical history is entirely His story. Considering the links betweenthe statutes and rules of Deuteronomy and the history recorded in Genesisto Numbers guides us to God.

In addition, when we approach Deuteronomy, we need to rememberthat the so-called Law of Moses perhaps better referred to as theInstruction of Moses since the Hebrew Torah is usually, if not always,closer to the English word instruction than to law is written asinstruction in wisdom and righteousness.17 As such Deuteronomy not onlycontains commandments, statutes, and judgments, but it also includesstories of its own, hortatory material, and even riddles and puzzles.

Allusions to other parts of the Torah sometimes qualify the meaningof one statute by another. The effect of combining allusions to stories and

laws, new or revised forms of old stories, riddles, and puzzles withapodictic laws and case laws is to multiply layers of meaning in the text.

15 N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1992), p. 3816 It is my contention that there are some laws that no Israelite could read withoutthinking of related stories, even though the particular law itself may not contain theelements of a literary allusion. We might call these echoes, but it seems even moreambiguous that that, so I have added various ways of referring to them.17 Actually, instruction might sound too much like a classroom word. Perhaps it is bestto 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.

7


9/71

Thus, the so-called law is a multi-layered, highly complex literary work.Simply making a list of the rules found in the five books of Moses wouldnot 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 theway to a true understanding of the meaning of Yahwehs Torah andYahweh Himself. A superficial reading, like that of modern atheistsskimming through the Torah to find material with which to accuse God,can only result in the most profound misunderstanding though this isnot accidental. It is what God intended. The Torah was given both toilluminate and mystify its readers. For some, Gods word is the light oflife; for others, like Pharaoh, it hardens the heart. For all it is the sword ofthe Spirit, which pierces as far as the division of soul and spirit (Heb. 4:12).

Therefore, Deuteronomy the quintessential book of Torah ismuch more than just the Ten Commandments.19 However, at the sametime, it is important to emphasize that most of the book, chapters 11-26, isan exposition of the meaning of the Ten Words for Israels life. Theallusions to stories and other laws, the background taken for granted inthis exposition, and the presuppositional framework provided in the storyof creation and redemption all function almost as Biblical commentaryon the laws.20 If we take time to consider the laws of the Torah in detail

18 Although Calvins commentaries on the laws of Moses contain much insight and thearrangement of the detailed laws under the Ten Commandments correctly defines therelationships of the various laws as applications of the Ten Words, nevertheless, by takingthe laws out of their original contexts, the commentaries miss the logical connectionsamong the laws and their narrative contexts. Calvin has inadvertently erased much of thetheological message of the Torah. This means, too, that it would be wrong for modernreaders to approach the Torah expecting to find black and white rules for life, and to readthe law as if it were written as a manual for success: Follow these ten simple rules andall will be well. Though it must be admitted, there is actually some truth to thisapproach. In the Ten Commandments Yahweh gave to Israel, He outlined a pattern of lifethat would lead to rich blessing. If the nation of Israel would have obeyed those simplerules, they would have lived long and happy lives in the land that Yahweh promised toAbraham. At the same time, we must insist that the rules-for-success-approach threatensto take the very heart out of the law. This is seen sometimes in a striking fashion when wefind a list of the Ten Commandments that does not include the preface: I am Yahwehyour 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 Iwill employ the more accurate translation, Ten Words. The Hebrew text does not say TenCommandments, but Ten Words. There are actually more than ten commands in theTen Words, and the Ten Words include material that cannot be subsumed well under theidea of command.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

8


10/71

and look into their complex literary background, we will discover that theTorah itself expounds the Torah.

To reiterate, then: What does this mean for our approach toDeuteronomy? It means that when we read the book of Deuteronomy

not to mention Exodus through Numbers we must read it first in thelight of the history and laws that precede it. This will give us a key tounderstanding the various commandments, statutes, and judgments inDeuteronomy. Of course, it is not the only key, but it does often unlockmysteries, or, even better, sometimes opens doors to new mysteries. Then,too, the history of Israel after the law, including the writings of theprophets, shows us how the prophets and leaders of Israel understood andapplied the law. Finally, of course, we must ask how each particular law orcommand 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 saidabove, it is not entirely wrong to call this law, we will see that theseverses are more like a Moses own meditation on the Seventh Word,actually pointing in directions that are not at all apparent on the surface ofthe 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

disregards the Bibles own chronology and story line, he distorts both narrative and law ina profoundly unilluminating book. See the ironically titled: Illuminating Leviticus: AStudy of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 2006). Ephraim Radner does a much better job of showing howthe laws of Leviticus fit with the overall story of the Bible climaxing in Jesus, even if he isnot always very helpful in the exegesis of Leviticus. Leviticus, in Brazos TheologicalCommentary 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 anew section of laws that contain numerous allusions to Genesis. 22:30 alludes also toother passages in the law, which also allude to Genesis, specifically, Leviticus 18:8; 20:11.These verses not only forbid a man to lie with his fathers wife, they also pronounce thedeath penalty on anyone who would. The allusion to the story of Reuben is obvious andits repetition in the law is pronounced (see also: Deu. 27:20). It seems to me that the clearallusion to Reuben here is an indicator of a new section, since this law is quite unlike thelaws that precede it, but similar to those which follow, even though the assembly of

Yahweh is not mentioned in 22:30.

9


11/71

assembly of Yahweh.22 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 quitedifferent from modern conceptions. It did include political or civil

aspects the inheritance of land, the responsibility to pay taxes and tofight in Israels militia, for example but these aspects of citizenship weresubordinate to or rather part of the larger and more important religiousmeaning: the responsibility to participate in the sacrificial worship of thepriestly people, to keep oneself clean from defilement, and in general tolove Yahweh and keep His commandments. To be a citizen of Israel was tobe a member of the nation of priests that Yahweh had called to Himself tobe His sacred treasure (Exo. 19:3-6). This special priestly relationship wasthe prominent feature of being a member of the assembly, even when the

assembly is being considered in terms of responsibilities that we wouldregard as civil or political.

The requirement of ritual purity for the members of the assembly ofIsrael, 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. Thewhole Torah is about a holy God who has called a people to Himself to be aholy priesthood.

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), thecongregation of the sons of Israel (Exo. 16:1), etc. including in Exodus through Joshua, at

least, even the simple expression, the assembly.

10


12/71

Chapter One

Deuteronomy 22:30A man shall not take his fathers wife, and shall not uncoverhis fathers wing (Hebrew: kanaf).

There are a number of unusual features in this law that mark it outfrom the previous context, indicating that it is introductory to the followingparagraph about the assembly of Yahweh, even though this verse does not

speak of the assembly directly. To begin with, this law is apodictic incontrast with the case laws in the preceding verses (22:13-29), but similar tothe initial laws on the Seventh Word in 22:9-12. Also, in contrast with thelaws from 22:13-19, but similar to the laws in 23:2-8, this law contains anevident historical allusion. Finally, 22:30 is linked to the laws in Leviticus18 about forbidden marriages and to the law in Numbers 15:37-39 aboutIsraelite clothing. In particular, it is the clothing laws that indicate thisverse is already focused on the idea of Israels special place as Yahwehstreasured 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 layersof presupposed background. It may be helpful here to list these beforeturning to the exposition.

1. The story of Reuben violating Bilhah, though not directlyalluded to, nevertheless clearly stands out.

2. The similar laws in Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11 supply anotherlayer of legal background.

3. The law in Numbers 15:37-41, alluded to even more directlyin Deuteronomy 22:12, is alluded to here in the use of theHebrew word for wing. Significantly, in Numbers this lawprovides the immediate backdrop for the story of therebellion led by Korah and the Reubenites, which reinforces

point 5 below.

11


13/71

4. The reference to uncovering the wing of the robe suggestsan allusion to another famous story in Genesis, the sin ofHam.

5. The motivation for this law is to be found in the story of theReubenite leaders rebellion in Numbers 16. This becomesclearer as we read onward in Deuteronomy and discover thislaws emphatic repetition in Deuteronomy 27:20 togetherwith the curse on Reuben in 33:6.

I also need to address one more question before entering into detailedexposition. 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 researchthat we have. Would they remember the laws and stories so readily? Thisis not a difficult question. I believe it would actually have been easier foran ancient reader to note the various layers in the law. Why? In partbecause 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 thebooks that Moses wrote. The stories in Genesis about Israels greatancestors would have been told over and over. Each tribe would know as

much as possible about its own father, though it was sometimesembarrassing.We also need to be reminded about the book of Deuteronomy as a

whole. It is such a long book that as we read it, we may forget where itbegins: These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel . . . in thefortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month (Deu. 1:1, 3).Deuteronomy is Moses farewell sermon just before his death, his partingwords to the people he loved. We can be sure that they are listeningattentively.

We should also imagine what happens in the congregation oflisteners, when Moses comes to the law in Deuteronomy 22:30, with thestory of Reuben obviously being alluded to. I can see the other tribes ofIsrael glancing toward the Reubenites, and the Reubenites holding downtheir heads in shame. Everything here is highly personal. Rememberingand noticing the most obvious allusions and background would hardlyrequire effort for them, though it does for us. Of course, picking up theentire multi-layered complex of references would no doubt have required

12


14/71

multiple readings and meditation, but that is exactly what Godcommanded Joshua to do (Josh. 1:8).

Reuben and Bilhah

Thus, it is not too much to suggest a historical allusion here to thestory of Reuben, who lay his fathers wife, Bilhah (Gen. 35:22). Theincident with Reuben is the only recorded case of a man lying with hisfathers wife, and through Jacobs curse on his firstborn son (Gen. 49:3),Reubens sin receives special emphasis in Genesis. This episode, thoughrecorded briefly and without emotional language, is so prominent in thestory of Israel that even though the law here is probably prohibitingmarriage to a fathers former wife rather than simple incest, the allusionstill stands. Israels history was short enough and the incident was famous

enough that it would be impossible for an Israelite of Moses day not torecall Reubens sin when reading this law.

We may wonder why Reuben would commit such a sin. I believeGordon Wenham is correct in seeing Reubens sin as a political act, not asensual one.23 The context of the story is important. In the paragraphimmediately preceding the record of the incident, Rachel had just diedgiving 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), finally allowing Leah to have the limelight sheso desperately sought. However, there remained one potential source ofcompetition, Bilhah. Since she had been Rachels slave, her children wouldbe seen as belonging to Rachel. Reuben, who seems to be especially closeto his mother (Gen. 30:14), would realize, as Wenham points out, that bylying with Bilhah, he could cut Jacob off from Rachaels slave, ensuring hismothers preeminence.24

Legal Background in Leviticus

The laws in Leviticus provide another aspect of what is presupposedin this text. The entire section of Deuteronomy 22:9-23:14 is about theSeventh 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 isabout. The expression take his fathers wife in the immediate context

23 Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, (Dallas: WordBooks, 1994) pp. 325-26.24 There is a slight possibility that Reuben may also be asserting his own rights ofinheritance as firstborn, in a manner similar to Absoloms attempt to steal Davids place

by openly lying with his concubines.

13


15/71

seems clearly to mean marry his fathers wife, for just a few versesbefore 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 isdoubtful 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 concubineor 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 (hlg) is not atechnical term referring only to sexual sins, that usage is prominent inLeviticus where uncover (hlg) occurs 24 times in 20 verses exclusivelyspeaking of sexual sin, not only unlawful marriage.25 Thus, the versewould be prohibiting a son from marrying his fathers wife after the father

had died or divorced his wife, but also forbidding a son from sexualrelationships with a concubine while the father lived.26

For modern people these laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy mightseem unnecessary, but in ancient Israel where polygamy was tolerated, thelaw was important and necessary. An older man might take a concubinewho was as young as, or even younger, than his son. For example, Davidsconcubine, Abishag, was certainly closer to the age of Adonijah thanDavid. Since she was renowned for her beauty, it was natural perhaps for

Adonijah to desire her, though Solomon was no doubt correct when hesuspected political motives for Adonijahs request (1Kin. 2:13-25). At anyrate, it is marriages of this sort that the law forbids, though, as we haveseen, it would include the prohibition of the specific sort of adultery thatReuben committed in lying with Bilhah and that Absolom committed bylying with Davids concubines.

It is also noteworthy that the laws in Leviticus 18 are both prefacedand followed by warnings for the Israelites not to be like the inhabitants ofCanaan, 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

25 The Hebrew word hlg (uncover) occurs in the entire Pentateuch 33 times in 29 verses,making its usage in Leviticus definitive in a similar context. The following list includesevery 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 withsexual sin, not just with unlawful marriage.26 That a sin like Reubens is implied is also suggested by the parallel verse inDeuteronomy 27:20, the only other verse in the Old Testament to use the expression PAnV;k hD;lg(uncover the wing): Cursed is he who lies with his fathers wife, because he hasuncovered his fathers skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen. Here it is not marriage

that is forbidden but lying with the fathers wife.

14


16/71

context specifically addresses adultery rather than marriage with aconcubine after a father has died (cf. 20:10), provides importantbackground as well, since it pronounces the death penalty on the man wholies with his fathers wife. Thus, Leviticus tells us that individuals who

imitate Reubens sin and societies that imitate the Canaanites sin deservethe death penalty.

The Fathers WingThe 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 readerbecause of our translations. Deuteronomy here uses an odd term for thefathers garment by referring to the place where the tassels are attached asthe 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 itsobviously symbolic language. The word kanaf (Pnk) originally refers to abirds wing (cf. Gen 1:21; 7:14; etc.) but it is used in a few places to refer tothe corners of a mans garment.27 Significantly in Deuteronomy 22:12, nearthe beginning of the section in Deuteronomy on the Seventh Word, there isa prior allusion to the original law in Numbers 15. This makes for a doubleallusion to the law in Numbers in the larger context. Clearly Moses isdrawing our attention to something.

What is the point of the allusion? We need to consider the law inNumbers to discover what Moses had in mind. Numbers 15:37-39 teachesus that there is a theological meaning and purpose to its clothingrequirement.

And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying,Speak unto the children of Israel,and bid them that they make them tassels in the wings oftheir garments throughout their generations,

27 Here is a list of every use of the Hebrew word Pnk 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 somedisagreement about where the tassels were to be hung. It might have been on the hem ofthe robe, as in some ancient pictures, or it might have been that Israelites wore an outergarment over their shoulders somewhat like a cape to which the tassels were attached.Tigay comments: Ancient Near Eastern art shows people wearing closed skirts androbes, not rectangular poncho-like garments. The four corners (lit., wings orextremities) were probably either the points on scalloped hems or the places at whichvertical 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.

15


17/71

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 heartand 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 covenantmemorial. What does that mean? In Genesis 9:12-17, God told Noah thatHe would set the rainbow in the sky as a sign to remind God of Hiscovenant promises to Noah. When God views the covenant sign, Heremembers the covenant. So, too, the blue tassels on the wings of thegarments were to remind Israelites of their holy calling to be the specialpeople of Yahweh. The covenant is implied both in the expression do all

my commandments and in the warning not to play the harlot. Also, thecommand to be holy expressed the core of Israels covenant obligation asthe chosen race, for it was in order that they might be a holy people thatYahweh had delivered them from Egypt and brought them to Himself(Exo. 19:3-6).

The covenantal significance of the tassels on the wings of thegarment suggests that the word wing has a symbolic meaning, especiallysince the tassels are specifically commanded to be blue one of the mostprominent colors of the tabernacle and the garments of the high priest. By

putting blue on their garments to remind them of the covenant, theIsraelites would also be associating themselves with the tabernacle and thepriesthood, which again expresses their covenantal obligation to be a holypeople.28 With such associations, I think it is legitimate to go one step

28 In addition to the fact that the cords had to be blue, it was probably also the case thatthey were made of wool in order to be dyed. Tigay writes: Numbers 15:38 requires thata blue cord be attached to each fringe. According to early rabbinic sources, the blue cordis made of wool while the other cords are linen. In other words, the tassels are made ofshaatnez, 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

16


18/71

further and speculate that the word wing is used to create an link withthe cherubim in the tabernacle.

Perhaps it will help us to see the picture if we remember that thetabernacle was a multivalent symbolic model.29 Included among its

meanings was that of being a model of Mt. Sinai. In other words, thetabernacle was a horizontal and mobile version of the great mountain ofthe Torah. Just as Sinai was divided into three areas the border aroundthe bottom of the mountain defined the forbidden area; a place half-wayup the mountain where the elders sat before God was the area to whichspecially appointed men could come; the top of the mountain where Godrevealed Himself to Moses was the most exclusive area the tabernaclealso was divided into three areas, the courtyard, the holy place, and themost 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 themost holy place. Other associations also show that the tabernacle was ahorizontal model of Mt. Sinai.

Mt. Sinai itself points elsewhere eliciting Eden, the garden on themountain top where God placed Adam and revealed Himself to him. Toborrow an image from a time later than Eden, in the original creation therewas 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, butin the days of Moses gave Israel a true mountain to heaven, a partiallyrestored Garden of Eden. In that sense, the tabernacle fulfills the visionJacob saw of a ladder to heaven with the angels of God ascending anddescending on it (Gen. 28:12-15).

The winged cherubim of the Garden of Eden were replaced by thewinged cherubim in the most holy place, situated on the ark of thecovenant where they symbolically guarded the covenant. The picture wehave is that of cherubim who are always looking on the covenant with

their wings extended. When the Israelites are told that the blue tassels ontheir wings are to remind them of the commandments and their obligation

rabbis would have initiated a practice contradicting a biblical prohibition. It is, in otherwords, 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 thepriestly garments; hence, wearing these tassels reminds every Israelite of the duty to strivefor 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 inwhich there is a blatant contradiction in the law intentionally made for the purpose oftheological instruction.

29 The best introduction to the symbolism of the Tabernacle is Jordan's Through New Eyes.

17


19/71

to be holy, it would have been natural to make the association with theblue tabernacle and its cherubim looking on the tablets of the Ten Words ofthe covenant.

It is also significant that the wings of the garment are first 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, whichwe are reminded of obliquely in Deuteronomy 23:3-6. Worshiping othergods 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 theIsraelites to be faithful as Yahwehs priestly people. In this way, the use ofwings in 22:30 alluding to the covenant memorial ties in with theemphasis on the assembly of Yahweh in 23:1-8 and serves, I believes, asan introduction to it.

The Sin of HamAnother story would almost certainly occur to an ancient reader of

the text, especially if he was taking the time to meditate on the contents. Itwould be obvious that the expression uncover his fathers wing refers tothe fathers robe, and so recalling the famous story of Ham removing hisfathers robe would naturally come to mind (Gen. 9:20-27). Although thisstory 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 thesignificance of the robe in the story of Noah and Ham. Genesis 9:23 inalmost all English translations suggests that Shem and Japheth took agarment, as if they picked up the nearest robe at hand. But the Hebrewclearly says they took the garment, as if we are supposed to knowsomething about the robe they took. The story is, thus, rather indirect, butit apparently goes like this. First, Noah took off his robe in his tent and

went to sleep because of the influence of the wine he drank. Ham at somepoint went into his fathers tent and stole his robe of authority, leaving hisfather naked. When Ham told his brothers what he had done, they tookthe robe from him and restored it to their father.

Apparently Ham was attempting to force his father into earlyretirement, so to speak, and take over his place of authority. If his brothershad joined the conspiracy, Noah would have been dethroned and his sonswould have taken over by force before he himself stepped down. Thus,even though this story probably has nothing to do with sexual sin, the

18


20/71

language of Deuteronomy 22:30 might still evoke the image of an infamousuncovering of the fathers garment.30 Furthermore, if the sin of Reubenincludes an attempt to claim authority for himself, an allusion to Hammight suggest that sexual sins like Reubens were usually matters of power

struggles. This provides another cultural reason in the context of ancientpolygamy for the promulgation of this sort of law.

The Motivation for Deuteronomy 22:30If I am correct in the above exposition that Moses intends his hearers

and readers to recall the story of Reubens sin, while also remembering theprevious related laws in Leviticus, the law of the wings of the garment inNumbers 15:37-39, and the story of Ham, there is one more story that anastute reader might be expected to recall. That story, moreover, suggests a

motive for Moses to have given this law in the first place. I am referring tothe story in Numbers 16 of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

Two things about that story especially stand out, matters that somemodern readers might not remember, but that Moses himself certainlyremembered. First, while Korah was a Levite, Dathan and Abiram, the twoother leaders of the rebellion were both from the tribe of Reuben. Second,the story of the rebellion of Korah and the sons of Reuben immediatelyfollowed the law of the tassels on the wings of the robe.

What does that mean? If we read Numbers carefully, it clearlyimplies that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram perversely interpreted the gift ofthe covenant-memorial tassels. Though it is true that law of the tasselsdeclared that every Israelite was holy (15:37-41, especially 15:40) and theblue tassels made all the Israelites priestly guardians of Gods law, to haveinfered from that that Moses and Aaron had no special place as leaders ofthe people was foolish rebellion. It appears that Korah, Dathan, andAbiram, noting that they wore blue priestly clothing and that they werecounted as cherubim, as also the rest of Israel, and that they were

appointed to guard the holiness of Yahweh, falsely concluded that thehierarchical priestly system of the Torah was an imposition of Moses andAaron. They assumed Moses and Aaron were obessed by an unholyambition to be great which is to say that the Reubenite leaders imputedto Moses and Aaron the kind of motives they themselves cherished.

30 See: James B. Jordan, Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis, inTactics of Christian Resistance, ed. Gary North (Tyler, Texas: Geneva Divinity SchoolPress, 1983), pp. 38-80, especially 48-52. Of course, literally speaking it was Noah whouncovered 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.

19


21/71

It was indeed Korah, of the tribe of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram ofthe tribe of Reuben who were ambitious, but their resentment againstGods anointed was contagious. Therefore, even though Gods miraculousjudgment against the rebels should have resolved the issue of the authority

of Moses and Aaron, it did not. The next day the congregation blamedMoses and Aaron for the deaths of the rebel leaders (Num. 16:41), leadingto another judgment (Num. 16:49). Then, because of the lingeringbitterness in Israel, Yahweh required leaders of all the tribes to bring a rodto the tabernacle (17:1-7). The rod of the man chosen by Yahweh wouldsprout, thereby indicating Yahwehs special favor for that man and histribe. When the rod of Aaron blossomed with flowers and ripe almonds,the rest of Israel feared that they were going to be consumed by Godswrath 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 ofNumbers, we realize the central significance of the story. The climacticrebellion of the Israelites in Numbers 14, of course, is the most importantsingle example of Israels unbelief and rebellion against Yahweh. But fromthat time until the final 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.31

It is as if tosay that the rebellion of Korah and the Reubenites reveals the true natureof the people of Israel as a whole and the reasons for their beingdisciplined in the wilderness. The importance of the Reubenite rebellion isfurther reinforced by Moses drawing attention to it again later in Numbers.

Reuben, Israels firstborn, the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, thefamily 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, andthose who were numbered of them were 43,730. The son ofPallu: Eliab. The sons of Eliab: Nemuel and Dathan and

31 The other material in chapters 15-19 are law, not narrative. The rebellion at Kadesh inchapter 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 arealready in the final year. The whole 38 years of wandering is thus characterized by storiesof rebellion. First the rejection of the land (14), then the rebellion of the Reubenites (16-17),

and finally the rebellion of Moses and Aaron (20), the tragic end of the great leaders lives.

20


22/71

Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram who were calledby the congregation, who contended against Moses andagainst Aaron in the company of Korah, when theycontended against Yahweh, and the earth opened its mouth

and swallowed them up along with Korah, when thatcompany died, when the fire devoured 250 men, so that theybecame a warning. The sons of Korah, however, did not die.(Num. 26:5-11)

As the above makes clear, the sons of Korah did not join their fatherin his rebellion against Moses and, ultimately, Yahweh Himself. They werefaithful. But the leaders of Reuben were rebels and their families wereconsumed with them. Unlike the rest of the tribe of Levi and the family of

Korah, the other Israelite tribes continued to harbor the hostility provokedby Dathan and Abiram. For Moses, clearly this rebellion was one of themost important instances of unbelief in the whole 40 years in thewilderness, second only to the rebellion of Numbers 14.

My conclusion about Moses motive in including a law likeDeuteronomy 22:30 is that Moses believed it was important to keep thetribe of Reuben in its place and use Reubens sin in Genesis as a reminderto the tribes of Gods judgement. As it says in Numbers 26:11, they

became a warning. The well-known stories of the rebellion in thewilderness led by Reuben would naturally occur to the Israelites throughMoses allusion to the story in Genesis.

This may sound far-fetched to some modern readers. Again, we haveto ask, would an ancient Israelite have made these connections? DidMoses intend these connections? I believe Moses certainly intended theseconnections, but lets consider the ancient reader. Perhaps on a firstreading of Deuteronomy 22:30 our hypothetical reader would have missedthe multiple layers I have suggested.32 But as he continued to read

Deuteronomy, he would have noticed other verses.What would he have thought, for example, when he read chapter 27?

In this chapter, Moses directed the Israelites to conduct a special covenantrenewal ceremony when they entered the promised land. Six tribes(Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin) were to stand onMount Gerizim to bless the people and six tribes (Reuben, Gad, Asher,

32 I do believe that the use of the word wing in 22:30 would be enough of a surprisethat 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.

21


23/71

Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali) were to stand on Mount Ebal to curse (Deu.27:11-13). The Levites were to shout out 12 curses and all the peopleanswer Amen. One of the twelve curses was almost an exact repetitionof 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?33

Obviously,Moses is making another allusion to the story of Reuben and doing so inthe most emphatic manner possible, with the whole nation pronouncing acurse on anyone who imitates the sin of Reuben.

Then, the ancient reader of Deuteronomy would encounter anotherstriking verse when he came to chapter 33 verse 6, though for the modernreader there is a translation problem.

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 LXXtranslation of the Bible into Greek misinterprets the Hebrew.

Let Rouben live, and not die out,And let him be many in number.34

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 ofblessing God promised to Abraham and it might seem appropriate here atthe beginning of the blessing of the tribes, for, as Driver notes, the generaltone of the chapter is very positive.35 However, the Hebrew text as it

33 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 theland, whose influence Moses warned against.34 Deuteronomy (Provisional Edition) in A New English Translation of the Septuaginttranslated by Melvin K. H. Peters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 4135 In his words, Compared, as a whole, with the Blessing of Jacob, the Blessing of Mosesmay be said to be pitched in a higher key; the tone is more buoyant; the affluence, or otherdistinctive 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.

22


24/71

stands seems to clearly pronounce a curse on Reuben. In fact the thoughtof Deuteronomy 33:6 is close enough to the Jacobs curse in Genesis 49:4that Moses words might be regarded as an interpretation.

The phrase could even be taken as an interpretation of Jacobswords in verse 4 there, you shall excel no longer, construingexcel as exceed, abound.36

In the history of Reuben, this curse came to fulfillment, as the tribedwindled both in number and in importance. But we can imagine a readerin the days of Joshua being surprised at the statement and then reflectingon Reuben and his tribe from the stories of Genesis to Numbers. Theallusions to the sin of Reuben in Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20 would then

be seen as reminders of the judgment pronounced against a tribe that led arebellion against Moses and Aaron, a tribe whose curse would weighheavily upon it.

Multiple allusions to Reubens sin and then a curse pronounced onthe tribe of Reuben in a context that pronounces blessings on the othertribes provokes questions that only find an answer in the history of theReubenites rebellion in the book of Numbers. It is not at all far-fetched tosuggest an ancient reader would have made these connections. On the

contrary, it is hard to imagine a serious reader not noticing at least theconnections suggested above.

Conclusion

We have seen here that in a relatively straightforward statement ofapodictic law, we have multiple historical allusions, or at leastpresupposed background knowledge, which give this law a rich andcomplex meaning which could not be read from the surface of the text

alone. The sins of Ham, Canaan, and Reuben reverberate in thebackground, most especially Reuben, though the double association mayimply similarity between the two rebellions. Israels special calling to be aholy nation, a priestly people, is suggested in the use of the word wingand this provides a subtle link with the next verses and their concern withthe assembly of Yahweh, which could be defined as the winged nation,the cherub nation. Uncovering the fathers wing, then, is undermining

36 Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy in The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish

Publication Society, 1996), p. 322.

23


25/71

his honor as a member of the winged nation, the most profounddisrespect a man could offer to his father, as Reuben did to Jacob. Perhapsthis could also be seen as what the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram,attempted to do to Moses and Aaron.

24


26/71

Chapter Two

Deuteronomy 23:1One wounded by crushing, or cut in the member shall notenter into the assembly of Yahweh.37

The translation of this verse varies in different English versions.However, the basic idea is clear enough: a eunuch is not to be admittedinto the assembly of Yahweh.38 Why not? An ancient Israelite who was

asked this question would have a ready answer. There are two basicreasons involved. First, that the Israelites were chosen to be a nation thatbears fruit abundantly, which puts a Eunich out of the Israelite community,the holy assembly. Second, the laws for sacrifices and priesthood demandphysical perfection, wholeness as a sign and symbol of holiness. Neitherof these reasons is specified here, but the second is especially clear, givensimilar rules in other parts of the law.

Sacrificial Animals and Priests

To begin with the second reason, we need to emphasize that for theassembly 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 qualifications for priestly service. Both lawsspeak of the kind of injury or defect referred to in Deuteronomy 23:1 andso form part of the presupposed legal context for this law.

And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace-offerings untoYahweh to accomplish a vow, or for a freewill-offering, of theherd or of the flock, it shall be perfect to be accepted; thereshall be no blemish therein. Blind, or broken, or maimed, or

37 This is a slightly edited version ofYoungs Literal Translation, along lines suggested byKeil and Delitzsch.38 Tigay says there were two sorts of emasculation. These are two types of emasculation,the first accomplished by destroying the testes, the second by some type of castration. It isnot clear whether this law applies to all who have these conditions or only to those who

acquired them voluntarily. Op. Cit. p. 211.

25


27/71

having a running sore, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offerthese unto Yahweh, nor make an offering by fire of them uponthe altar unto Yahweh. Either a bullock or a lamb that hathanything superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou

offer for a freewill-offering; but for a vow it shall not beaccepted. That which hath [its stones] bruised, or crushed, orbroken, or cut, ye shall not offer unto Yahweh; neither shall yedo thus in your land. Neither from the hand of a foreignershall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; becausetheir corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them: theyshall 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 arenot perfect as God created them it must be perfect to be accepted; thereshall be no defect in it. Defective animals, including specifically animalswith stones crushed, are not appropriate as representatives or substitutesfor Gods image, man. An Israelite in Joshuas day reading the law inDeuteronomy 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 fromthe assembly.

That the logic of the law with regard to animals would apply to menas well is clearly seen in reference to the priests. Among the Israelites, theLevites and the family of Aaron were the appointed representatives.Therefore no one from the tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron with aphysical defect39 could draw near to Yahweh.

And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying,Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seedthroughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not

approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever manhe be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man,or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous,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 isscurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; no man of the

39 The same Hebrew word for blemish or defect is used both of animals and men. Inthe law of Moses, Mwm appears in the following verses: Lev 21:1718, 21, 23; 22:2021, 25;

Num 19:2; Deut 15:21; 17:1.

26


28/71

seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nighto offer the offerings of Yahweh made by fire: he hath ablemish; 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 comenigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profanenot my sanctuaries: for I am Yahweh who sanctifieth them.So Moses spake unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all thechildren of Israel. (Lev. 21:16-24)

The law for the priests, especially in association with the law of thesacrifices, provides theological background for the law in Deuteronomy23:1. 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 theIsraelites as a nation of priests (Exo. 19:6) represented mankind. Again, justas animals were to represent men and function as substitutes andrepresentatives for them, so the priestly nation had a special place amongall the nations of the world as representatives of the nations, praying forthem and offering sacrifice for them. They must, therefore, be holy notonly in lifestyle, but even physically to represent mankind as Gods image.They 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 ofthe matter is actually presented in the opposite order. It is not first animalsand then man, priests. On the contrary, the law that specifies that thepriests must be whole to approach Yahweh precedes the law concerningthe animals. In other words, it is not that priests are like animals, butrather that animals are like priests. Animals offered to Yahweh must bewithout defect because, like the priests, they come close to Yahweh. Theyrepresent the offerer like the priest represents the offerer. Priest and animal

offering both come into the presence of the holy Yahweh. Thereforenothing that might be regarded as a blemish or as corruption may be seenin either of them.

Why not? The reason is clear, Biblically: defects of any sort remind ofthe death and the curse. In other words, a blemish or corruption in thebody of the priest would function as the exact opposite of the covenantmemorial that reminds God of His covenant grace (Gen. 9:12-17). The lawshere suggest the following parallel: just as when God sees the rainbow, He

27


29/71

remembers His covenant grace, so also when He sees a blemish, Heremembers mans sin and the curse.

I hasten to add an important qualification that a modern reader mightmiss. Ceremonial wholeness and corruption are not regarded as a

soteriological categories. As can be seen from Lev. 21:22, laws aboutphysical defects do not imply that a man disqualified as a priest was also tobe excluded from the blessings of salvation. In fact, the law explicitlyaddresses the matter, specifying that a descendant of Aaron who was notqualified to serve as a priest was still allowed to partake of the bread ofhis God. This included the most holy things (Lev. 21:22). Thus, priestlyservice 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 aman who was physically defective would be excluded from salvation, onlythat he would not be qualified to be a priestly representative in theassembly of Yahweh. The priestly nation, like the priests themselves andthe sacrifices offered to God, had to be perfect. But they represented otherpeoples and nations who were far from perfect. Even so, Gentiles whotrusted in God could be saved, though they could not become members ofthe assembly of Israel unless they were circumcised and went through

the whole process of joining the Israelites.40

Abraham and CircumcisionThe 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 lawwould make the association, but perhaps in a manner different from amodern reader. For modern men, the simple physical fact that a eunuchcannot have children is enough to draw attention to the inappropriatenessof 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. Thisis especially appropriate in a section of the law related to the Seventh

40 Here, qualifications for men and women were different and the process would havebeen somewhat complicated after the conquest, since all the families of Israel had alreadybeen given specific plots of land. A male convert could be circumcised and presumablyjoin one of the tribes, but he would not receive a plot of land, unless perhaps he marriedinto an Israelite family. Still, it would have been theoretically possible for a Gentile to

become an Israelite.

28


30/71

Word, but it is worth noting in passing. Second, the ancient reader wouldcertainly note that the word eunuch itself is not used here as it is insome modern translations but rather expressions describing how onebecomes a eunuch. This is significant, I believe, because the reference to

the male member being cut off could be associated with the ceremony ofcircumcision. But was it? I believe that I can clearly show in the ancientmind that it was associated.

We might not relate the two ideas, but the apostle Paul himself showsus that the association between cutting off the male organ entirely andcircumcision was a natural association, even though he refers to itsarcastically.

But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still

being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross hasbeen removed. I wish those who unsettle you wouldemasculate 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 languagehere is grounded in the nature of circumcision itself, for circumcision is, infact, a sort of ceremonial and symbolic castration. Again, though this may

not be obvious to a modern reader, the story of the gift of circumcision asthe 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 tooold to bear children. As far as childbirth was concerned, they were bothdead. So, the birth of Isaac was a miracle. In the book of Hebrews, thismiracle of an elderly man and woman having a child is referred to in inexactly that language.

By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seedwhen she was past age, since she counted him faithful whohad promised: wherefore also there sprang of one, and himas 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)

29


31/71

In Greek it is very clear that the one who was as good as dead wasAbraham. He was as good as dead because he was too old to have a son.41

It was at this time and to a man in this condition that God gave thecovenant sign of circumcision.

And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; andit shall be a sign of a covenant between me and you. (Gen.17:11)

Also, it was specifically at this impossible time that Yahweh renewedthe promise of descendants without number and changed Abrams nameto Abraham. God also promised that Sarai who was also given a newname, Sarah would bear the covenant heir. The story reflects Gods

perfect but strange faithfulness. Yahweh keeps His covenant promises in away that boggles the imagination. He waits till Abram and Sarai arephysically dead, as far as childbirth is concerned, and then gives themnew names and a new ceremony connected with the promised child. Hetells Abram to cut off the skin of the organ of reproduction. Abram cutsoff precisely what he needs to bear seed because the organ for bearingseed is already dead.

The ceremony of circumcision given in this historical and theological

context, then, apparently functions as symbolic castration. To understandthis 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 typicallythe part symbolized the whole. Thus, cutting off the foreskin would havebeen a symbolic confession that Abraham is impotent and cannot bear seedfor the kingdom of God. For Abraham, circumcision was a ceremonialrecognition of his actual physical condition, as well as his spiritual need forYahwehs blessing. For those of his household who were still youngenough 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, wecan be sure they did it seems relatively obvious. Certainly Abrahamand those around him would have asked themselves, why this ceremony?What does it mean to cut off the foreskin? Why is this ceremony connectedwith the promise of innumerable heirs? Why is the promise and the

41 His own father had Abraham at a much later age, but that is not apparently relevant.

In Abrahams case, he was too old to have a child.

30


32/71

ceremony given to Abram when neither he or Sarai can bear children? Allof these questions are inescapable and considering them all together leadsrather ineluctably in one direction. The result of considering thesequestions 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 wasdead and Sarai was also dead. What should be done? The symbolicsolution is to, cut off the dead instrument so that a seed may be born. (Wesee why Abraham believed in resurrection.) From the time of Abrahamonward, every child born of a circumcised Israelite father would beregarded symbolically as a miracle child like Isaac, born of a dead fatherthrough 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 Moaband Ben-ammi, would surely have triggered the association, for the storyof Lots sons is sandwiched between the story of the covenant sign inGenesis 17 and the fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 21. Abraham wascircumcised (Gen. 17). God visited him, reiterating the promise (Gen. 18).Then, God judged Sodom and Gomorrah, saving Lot (Gen. 19). Godprotected Sarah from Abimelech (Gen. 20). And finally, Yahweh blessedAbraham and Sarah with a child (Gen. 21). The gap between the promise

and fulfillment is filled with the story of Lot. The two stories thereforewould be associated in the minds of an ancient Israelite. If one missed theimplied background of Deuteronomy 23:1 on his first reading,Deuteronomy 23:2-3 would provoke him to think again.

For the ancient Israelites, of course, the story of Abraham and the giftof the covenant sign of circumcision would have been among the mostfamous and most popular stories in the Bible. When Moses preachedDeuteronomy to them, the story of Abraham would stand out for specialreasons beyond the fact that the only Bible they had would have been

Genesis to Numbers. They were about to enter the land promised toAbraham in Genesis 12, four hundred years previously. With their owneyes and in their own lives, they were witnessing the same strange andwonderful faithfulness Yahweh had shown to Abraham. Moses, therefore,reminded them repeatedly of Abraham and the promise that was about tobe fulfilled. Careful readers of Deuteronomy will have Abraham on theirminds constantly as they consider this book.42

42 References to Abraham in Deuteronomy abound. His name occurs 7 times in

Deuteronomy compared with only one reference each in Leviticus and Numbers. Though

31


33/71

Moses and CircumcisionThat Israelites saw circumcision as a sort of ceremonial castration

seems to be confirmed by another story, the story of the circumcision of

Moses son.

And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, thatYahweh met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah tooka flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and touched hisfeet; and she said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou tome. So he let him alone. Then she said, A bridegroom ofblood 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 hisson was going to be cut off from the covenant people in the most literalway possible.43 Yahweh was going to put him to death for violating themost basic covenantal form, the covenant-entrance ceremony ofcircumcision. Second, circumcision is a bloody ceremony, part of thelarger sacrificial system in which blood is shed as a symbol of the death ofthe offerer. In the immediate context, circumcision as a blood sacrifice

points to the passover (Exo. 4:22-23). Circumcision, like other aspects ofthe sacrificial system, then, signifies 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 notedthe aspect of ceremonial death involved in a blood-shedding covenantceremony. Though we might miss the literary associations, it should beclear that the incident with Moses and its connection with passover showsthat passing over rather than judging depends upon seeing the blood of

Exodus refers to Abraham 9 times, Deuteronomy has numerous references to thefathers, which include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Altogether Exodus has only 13 totalreferences to Abraham and the fathers (Exod 2:24; 3:6, 13, 1516; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 10:6; 13:5, 11;32:13; 33:1), whereas Deuteronomy refers either to Abraham or the fathers in 35 verses(Deut 1:8, 11, 21, 35; 4:1, 31, 37; 5:9; 6:3, 10, 18; 8:3, 16, 18; 9:5, 27; 10:15, 22; 11:9, 21; 12:1;13:6, 17; 19:8; 27:3; 28:11, 36, 64; 29:13; 30:5, 9, 20; 31:16; 32:17; 34:4).43 As James Jordan points out, in the immediate previous context, it is the firstborn ofEgypt who are referred to. In verse 24, the him is not specified. Thus, the he isambiguous. Jordan takes it to be Gershom, Moses firstborn 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.

32


34/71

the sacrifice. Yahweh passed over Gershom or Moses when He saw theblood just as He would pass over the houses of the Israelites who hadsmeared blood on their doors.

Returning then, to Deuteronomy 23:1, to speak of castration in a law

about who is qualified to be a member of the assembly of Yahweh wouldalmost certainly have provoked the meditative reader to recall the storiesof Abraham and Moses and to consider the meaning of circumcision assymbolic castration a confession that the holy seed could only comethrough the miracle of Gods special grace.

What does that mean for our context? It means that the law is ironicin a sense. A man who was actually castrated could not enter the assemblyof Yahweh. Only a man who was symbolically castrated could enter. Theone who was symbolically castrated had died through circumcision,

confessing that he was not worthy to bear fruit for Gods kingdom. Theone who was physically castrated was physically unable to fulfill hisresponsibility as a member of the covenant community and was excludedfrom the assembly. The irony of the law remains, for by drawing attentionto castration, the law reminds the Israelites that none of them are trulyqualified, that they only stand in the assembly of Yahweh by grace.

Conclusion

The law excluding the eunuch from the assembly of Yahweh wasintended not only to exclude those who were actual eunuchs, but also toremind the Israelites of story of the eunuch Abram and the sign ofcircumcision, by which every man in Israel confessed his unworthiness tobe a seed-bearer for the holy nation. The irony of Gods grace would havebeen 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 comeAnd 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.

33


35/71

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 houseand within My walls a memorial,And a name better than that of sons and daughters;I will give them an everlasting namewhich will not be cut off.44 (Isa. 56:1-5)

44 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.

34


36/71

Chapter Three

Deuteronomy 23:2A bastard (mazmer) shall not enter into the assembly ofYahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enterinto the assembly of Yahweh.45

The translation bastard here for mazmer, common in oldertranslations 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 difficult. The LXXtranslation, referring to the child of a prostitute, is also incorrect. Rather,Talmudic exegesis is to be preferred in its identifying the mazmer as onewho is born of a forbidden union.46

Talmudic scholars were correct to note that the idea of forbiddenunions is introduced in Deuteronomy 22:30, where a son is forbidden tomarry his fathers former wife. Other forbidden unions are outlined inLeviticus 18, but the law in 22:30 comes rather abruptly into the context.

As we have already seen, its insertion is probably for the purpose ofmaking a connection between Deuteronomy 22:30-23:14 and Leviticus 18,as well as provoking our historical attention through an allusion toReuben. As in Leviticus, the concern is with the holiness of the assembly ofYahweh. The priestly people must be holy to approach Yahweh, just as thesacrificial animals used to represent the priestly people must beunblemished and whole to be used as substitutes for the holy people.

The expression even to the tenth generation in 23:2 probablymeans, forever.47 It does not seem to mean until the tenth generation,as if to imply that from the 11th generation admission to the assembly

45 Unless otherwise stated, translations here are from the American Standard Version.However, I have changed its Jehovah to Yahweh, which is generally considered amore accurate rendering of the tetragrammaton.46 The ESV and the NRSV both follow this understanding.47 The exact expression is only used twice in the entire Old Testament, but the addition ofMDlwo_dAo (forever) in verse 3 seems to remove any uncertainty. Nehemiah 13:1 confirmsthis 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 . . . .

35


37/71

would be possible. But this is an alternative approach to the text that wewill consider. On the surface, what the law appears to be saying is that achild born of a forbidden union could never be a member of the assemblyof Yahweh. But there are passages in the law itself, as well as in the

history which both precede and follow the law, which suggest that this is aprofoundly mistaken reading. An intelligent reader in Joshuas day wouldhave recalled numerous other passages in his quest to understand thisverse that would result in a somewhat surprising interpretation.

History Preceding the LawTo explain what I mean, lets begin with the history in Genesis.

Readers in Moses day, cognizant as they would have been of Israelshistory, would have noticed immediately what a modern reader might

not think of that 23:2 links directly with the story of Tamars incest withher 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 becamethe mothers of Ammon and Moab. Though Lots daughters committedincest, they were both virgins at the time, and in ancient Israel that countedfor something. However, Tamar, was not a virgin. In fact, she was theformer wife of two of her father-in-laws, sons his son Er, who was

wicked in the sight of the Lord and his second son, Onan, who was alsojudged by God because of his sins.Onan, Genesis tells us, knew that if a son was born to Tamar, it would

not be his son (Gen. 38:9), so he avoided his duty to provide his brotherwith an heir and was judged by God (Gen. 38:10). What is this about? It isabout a law called the levirate. In the time of Judah and Tamar, it wasapparently a custom, though it is not clear how broadly it was observed orwhere it originated.48

Later it became a law in Israel (Deu. 25:5-10), and it is through the law

that we understand the details of the earlier custom in Genesis.

48 Laws from the Middle Assyrian period of Mesopotamian history witness somethinglike the Biblical law of the levirate, but there are detailed differences and given thefundamentally different religious faiths, the motivation and meaning of thesuperficially similar laws must have been very different. On the whole, however, oursources for ancient customs are too sparse to allow us to make definitive statements.What can be said, however, is that the meaning of the levirate law in the Biblefunctions as part of a worldview that fundamentally differs from Israels neighbors.For ancient Near Eastern laws, see: A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, edited by

Raymond Westbrook (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

36


38/71

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son,the wife of the dead shall not be married without unto a stranger:her husbands brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him towife, and perform the duty of a husbands brother unto her. And it

shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in thename of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out ofIsrael. (Deu. 25:5-6)

The stipulation that the brethren live together seems to imply thatthe younger brother is unmarried. In other words, the law is not requiringpolygamous marriages. The unmarried younger brother, then, marries hisolder brothers widow in order to raise an heir to his brother, who has diedwithout a son. This was considered an important obligation, especially

because Israel was the seed people. The fact that Tamar took her side ofthe obligation so seriously is the reason the Bible regards her as a greatwoman. If the levirate custom among the patriarchs was informed by theirfaith in the God of Abraham, and it would seem that it must have been,then for Tamar to seek a son for her deceased husband would have been anexpression of her faith in the God of Abraham even though her methodof becoming a mother involved seducing her father-in-law.

On the surface, Tamars union with Judah belongs explicitly to the

class of forbidden unions (Lev. 18:15). In fact, given her status in Judahsfamily she was guilty of a form of adultery as well as incest. On anyunderstanding of the Hebrew word mazmer, Tamars children should beexcluded, for her union with Judah was forbidden and adulterous. Thechildren would be illegitimate from any and every perspective. Thisshould mean (or should seem to mean), then, on a literal or narrowinterpretation of Deuteronomy 23:2 that Judahs sons by Tamar could notbelong to the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation, which, aswe have shown, probably means forever.

Passages in the LawBut remarkably this is not the way the law describes them.

Descendants of Perez and Zerah Tamars twin sons are counted asthe legitimate sons of Judah and are included in the assembly

Documents

How to Read the Law of Moses